Well yes and no. We would be well advised not to make wild legal challenges not only without supporting evidence but indeed against known evidence.
It's telling that they couldn't get to first base even with politically sympathetic Trump-appointed judges. You might suspect that was because the whole system colluded not to go there, but you'd be wrong: they also had ample opportunity to bring whatever case they had to the media and public (way, way, way more than we ever had); they kept promising "the kraken" and delivering a corn muffin.
They had nothing - probably because they were more intent on making any kind of splash, and keeping alive the mythology of a stolen election (indeed a "sacred landslide") - from which, incidentally, they raised a couple hundred million bucks - than on putting in the hard work necessary to make a serious case.
If they had even pulled together something on the order of my recently published paper, they would have had something like a leg to stand on. But, alas, all the statistical forensics stacked up against them. Maybe that should have told them something. Well, too bad, so sad - as my Civ Pro professor used to say.
Faulkner put it so well: "You can't get away from a shoddy job," says Cash Bundren in As I Lay Dying. I think the only lesson here - and it's not especially chilling - is don't be lazy and shoddy and stupid and you won't get in this kind of trouble.