All the cases had to present enough evidence to allow there to be a chance of a favorable verdict. If the cases are dismissed it's because even if favorably interpreted the claims did not meet that standard. One cannot just say "we'll show our evidence later, just believe me for now".

SCOTUS rejected Texas for standing. Wisconson and PA SCOTUS both rejected for standing and laches, multiple states had courts immediately dismiss because they said they were not the correct court for this and in the cases I saw immediately offered the paperwork for the appellate process.

Which fraud cases were actually lost vs dismissed for technical or procedural reasons?

If your claim is "the courts proved no fraud" you need to show me where the courts actually investigated and heard evidence. Otherwise, I can't agree with your claim.

Right, that was a case that didn't even state a claim that could be addressed. If your case lacks standing then there is literally no evidence for it that could work.

What they were doing there, of course, was trying to use SCOTUS to relitigate claims that had already been shot down in state courts.

That all of the fraud stuff is bullshit should have been obvious from soon after the beginning. The claim of fraud was made, but the evidence to justify the claims was a constantly revolving circus of nonsense. It shows they reached the position that fraud must have occurred not because they had evidence of fraud, but because they didn't like the result.

I like how the courts have treated Trump so brutally. His thing is complete disregard of facts or reason. The courts are the polar opposite of that, so of course he failed utterly there. His normal modus operandi of dishonesty is something judges are there to destroy.