By "3%", I'm referring to the threshold that must be observed when playing the game of stacking dummy votes before it becomes noticeable. By comparison, the scale of the primaries is such that a given political party can get away with a rate of 10% fraudulent ballots or, at the very least, "counted" votes before hitting a barrier of explicit fraud (see also: Hillary and Biden stealing primaries in CA and IA). The threshold for a general is 3%, and they must surpass it. They will, of course, launch the same narrative of "look no further" with regards to voter fraud OR they will project blame on the opposition. But this is the first time that they've had to deal with someone who has a vested interest in exposing voter fraud--as opposed to establishment Republicans who've been complicit with Democrats in hiding it.
Going back to the 1960 election, JFK won by voter fraud, unquestionably in Illinois (through his father Joe Kennedy's mafia ties there) and only slightly questionably not fraud in Texas as well (LBJ's political machine).
Nixon could have challenged the outcome, but did not, because he knew it would tear the nation apart. As compared to Al Gore and Hillary and Obama, who have absolutely no problem dividing the country and tanking the stock market for their political gain. Or if not guaranteeing their Democrat gain, at least damaging the unity of the country out of pure spite. If they can't win, they undermine the system. I think it's clear we'll see another round of that Democrat spite for the next week, and probably the next 4 years and beyond.
