It didn't come close to succeeding. But I don't think people should inherently be criticized for having pointed out that a high-impact but low-probability event—Trump stealing the election—deserved attention.

...

With that said, there were issues with *some* of these claims.

Namely, there was a lack of precision to many of them; they didn't explain the mechanisms by which the election would be stolen. Often they were a bit Underwear Gnomes-ish:

1. Trump wants to steal the election
2. ???*
3. ELECTION STOLEN

* Or "THE COURTS!!"

Maybe that's OK. "We don't know *how* the election might be stolen, but Trump has expressed a lot of dangerous ideas and parts of the system haven't been tested, so we need to keep our guard up". That's totally reasonable. But there's a fine line between vigilance and panic.