However, look at the aggregate polling results (how people said they intended to vote) prior to the election, and the actual vote counts (how they voted).
If there has been fraud on a scale sufficient to change the results, the difference would be clearly apparent.
It's not, and "vote fraud" was not a significant factor in the outcome of the presidential election in any state.
If someone wishes to believe otherwise, that's not a problem.
Unless that belief causes then to expect they can get a different result next time by preventing the fraud that was not the cause of the result this time.
Then, IMO it's a big problem.
I think Pennsylvania is the primary state where vote fraud makes a major difference in statewide election results. But, then again, I am not as familiar with other states. Dems have no qualms about cheating everywhere. The problem is, Romney did not win big enough to make cheating irrelevant. Instead, the opposite happened. McCain/Palin pulled more voters in a bad GOP year than Romney did in a back Dem year. And that was the biggest problem of all - a really crappy candidate that the GOP-e insisted was the best choice.
When you have millions of voters an time after time there are narrow wins of less than a thousand it screams of vote mnufacturing and making enough to win but not so many to attract attention. I think in this election we also had vote demolishing where republican votes were lost