The standard for 2016 is therefore whether or not Russian interference occured, which two high level US government reports have confirmed took place.
In fact, this is exactly what was alleged in many court cases. These cases were not allowed to move forward, however, because of procedural issues, not the merits of the case (standing, mootness, and latches).
If it's true, where is this evidence? It hasn't been on Fox. It hasn't been on OAN. It hasn't been on Newsmax. What's been presented has been uniformly debunked in ways that I find completely convincing. If this is as big as it's claimed to be, you don't shut up just because a judge says you don't have standing.
I haven't found a statistical summary, but I've just surveyed the status of all the cases on several neutral sites (ABA, Ballotpedia and others). I don't see how it is possible to draw any conclusion other than a deeply incompetent legal team with no convincing evidence failed to get a single in-place ruling that supports their wild claims.
and ctrl+f "standing" = 16 results (6 cases).
Bowyer et al. v. Ducey et al.
Wood v. Raffensperger et al.
Pearson et al. v. Kemp et al.
Feehan et al. v. Wisconsin Elections Comm'n et al.
Texas v. Pennsylvania et al.
Gohmert et al. v. Pence
ctrl+f "laches"
Tyler Kistner et al. v. Steve Simon, et al.
Their recollection matches my recollection of events.
> There has been a Senate inquiry with conclusions at odd with your recollections.
The results of that inquiry weren't released until 2020.
> The Mueller report came to conclusions at odd with your recollections.
That report wasn't released until 2019.
That means there were at least three years of unverified allegations, swarming around - espcially prevalent on social media - sans ban hammers, censorship, etc., etc.
Your recollection seems at odds with reality. There has been a Senate inquiry with conclusions at odd with your recollections. The Mueller report came to conclusions at odd with your recollections. A reminder: that report, while not indicting the president or his team in anything in particular, found what it considered incontrovertible evidence of Russian interference designed to favor the election of Trump. The Senate report came to the same conclusions, even more strongly stated.
As for your claim that the people espousing this view being "far more influential than a man who sells pillows", I think you'd need to establish a metric for "influential", since it is far from clear precisely what you mean.
Furthermore, the sense that some people had regarding Russian interference in the 2016 elections never resulted in violence or death (certainly not directly). Nobody claimed that the election had been "stolen" (that's a direct quote from a large number of people regarding the 2020 elections). There was just a sense of unease and disquiet that the election may not have been fair but the result was accepted anyway.