If all that we needed to be concerned with was the 100% districts, you would be right. But the 100% districts are merely a symptom of voter fraud, manifested in places where there was no need to be cautious, and they overdid it. Voter fraud, however, is not restricted to solidly partisan territory. There are double voters, dead people kept on roles, and lax identification requirements, all of which are a concern everywhere. The 100% districts are an indication of what might be going on statewide. But as I say, nobody on this forum has the resources to thoroughly investigate even Ohio, let alone all of the swing states.
In a landslide victory, such as Obama had in 2008, it’s moot. The voter fraud changes nothing. But in a close election, such as in 1960, it can make a big difference.
Thus, the election might have been stolen.
Both true, but two types of fraud. The 100% districts are due to some sort of coaching or other system preventing a free vote in unmonitored precincts. The vote also represents lockstep ghetto mentality, I really doubt the actual vote is less than the high 90's. They didn't need to be cautious and didn't overdo some other type of fraud.
The other types of fraud are present almost anywhere and manifest in college students who can vote in their college and home state with almost no way of being caught along, the infirm being coached how to vote, the dead or fictitious voting absentee. That may add up to enough fraud to swing a swing state but I have not seen an analysis of enough extra votes to do that. 1k seems plausible, but not 100k here in Virginia.