From my election data analysis from US the last 6 years or so, it appears that in a 2-person race any numbers above about 2/3 (66%) in favor of one candidate indicates cheating of some kind. Once you hit 70%, the probability of cheating goes up dramatically, and over 75% it rapidly approaches 100% probability. This appears to be why in the US, the Democratic leadership in the House all typically have wins greater than 75% because they PAY for those numbers and get treated like "royalty" by those rigging the system by giving them 75-25, 80-20, and 85-15 "victories".

They have to be more careful in Senate races and they typically follow the Hammer & Scorecard preprogrammed differentials which are in around 2.2% increments from what I recall. This means that a Senate victory may be typically be 51.1-48.9 (2.2 delta) or 52.2-47.8 (4.4 delta). This is how H&S works: it goalseeks the desired "margin of victory" by switching enough votes to hit the target. If you want to win you PAY, if you want to win bigger you PAY more. [if you get the raw 2020 CA election day computer results before the ballot harvesting you can see all of the increments. EVERY race had precise margins of victory because every race used Hammer & Scorecard. There appeared to be at least 6 tiers of victory margin].

I believe the caution in the Senate races is there because the prospect of a Democrat getting elected to ANY Senate seat in a Red State is nearly mathematically impossible. And if too many people start running the numbers based on actual Senate voter locations anything bigger than a small victory falls apart quite quickly. Theoretically, if a State is majority Red, no Democratic Senators should ever be elected.

I deleted my original analysis of CA 2020 data after sending some of the results to the Trump campaign, but I thought I would share what I recall so other anons could be on the lookout for some "victory margin" signatures of the Hammer & Scorecard system in the upcoming mid-terms.