McDaniel's Sore Loser Brigade doesn't have half as strong a case as these guys did. In Dornan's case, it was worth the fight, inasmuch as he was running against a communist lunatic. In Mississippi, they're attempting to destroy a good Republican.
Cochran won the runoff by 7,667 votes, according to the certified vote count announced this week. McDaniel's partisans don't just have to prove that more than 7,000 ineligible voters went to the polls, but also that they all voted for Cochran, not McDaniel. Good luck with that.
The bottom line for Republicans should be that they have a viable Republican candidate and that in a bright red state like Mississippi, he's liable to win. But ongoing acrimony between the McDaniel and Cochran camps isn't going to make either potential candidate look very good. And that could very well be an own-goal for the Red team.
Now, I sure don't mind that much with the balance of the US Senate at stake and the added flavor of turning Mississippi purple. And I won't discount McDaniel's chance of actually pulling off the trick of discovering substantial enough fraud or "irregularities" to even get a court case going (we had this happen locally in a state senate election in PA--I think I recall that Marks got in to serve in the state senate for a matter of months mostly because there was less fraud on his side--he was replaced by a Democrat, naturally). But McDaniel might mind if this didn't turn out well for either himself or his party.
I get the disappointment the McDaniel's folks feel about the loss--it seems like a cheat, but in the end, the game was set up to favor someone who could get new votes, which is what Cochran was able to pull off and McDaniel couldn't. (My mom, a dedicated cable news viewer, suggests that maybe there was a little soreness on the young dog's part that the old dog still had a new trick in him.) But blowing it up into practically a federal case (with True the Vote coming in at the suggestion of "fraud" to actually file a lawsuit against the state party, I guess, for certifying the uncertifiable?)--well, it seems short-sighted. And could provoke the kind of ugliness that lasts, which in a primary that has already seen one tragedy, ain't worth it.