How Trump might still win
There is hope. It's slim, but it's there.
This has never happened before, and we are in murky territory, but let's try to see through the murk.
In several states, including the ones Trump is now suing (Pennsylvania included), there were enough suspicious votes (fraudulent) to swing the election. But for that fraud, Trump would have been the clear winner.
We don't know how the court will rule, but it is possible that the court could award those electors to Trump or at least disqualify them from casting their votes.
If enough electors (or their votes) are disqualified, neither candidate will have the necessary 270 electoral votes to win. That would then send the decision to the House of Representatives, where the advantage would go to Trump, even if there are more Democrats in the House than Republicans. That is because, in the House, each state, not each representative, becomes a de facto elector. Each state would select one of its House members to vote for a candidate, and by this measure, there are more Republican states than Democrat. Trump would likely win.
The key to all of this is for the Supreme Court (or a state court, which is unlikely) to disqualify the electors who were fraudulently elected. This could throw the election to the House, a likely win for Trump, as was just pointed out.
It seems unlikely that the Supreme Court will actually disqualify any electors, but it could happen. Trump's lawyers can make the legal case, which is beyond my capability and authority, since I am not a lawyer. But any of us can make the moral case.
The Court is reluctant to overrule a state's election, because history and the Constitution weigh heavily in favor of each state Legislature's autonomy regarding its elections. It more often requires that the Congress should intervene rather than the Court alone.
However, Trump can (and in my opinion should) argue that no state has the right to defraud the entire nation in a matter so important as the presidential election.
Another, more precise, argument, is that when a state certifies its vote totals, it bears the burden of proof, or at the very least of a preponderance of evidence, to dispel any reasonable doubt as to whether the vote-counting was a sham. There is more than sufficient evidence to call into question the vote-counting.
In the Democrats' favor, they have carefully contrived to scatter their fraud among so many precincts that it may be impracticable to apply the needed standard of proof to decertify the total results in any given state. You can't swat all the mosquitoes in the forest. (One might substitute the murder hornet for the mosquito in this analogy.)
But the arguments are more than legal and even more than moral. The courts might be afraid to decertify any electors for fear of generating the chaos of constitutional crisis and even seditious riots that make the Antifa riots look tame. Even if the Court overcomes that fear, there is an even greater one.
That greater fear is the enormous power, the overwhelming power, of the Deep State, the unelected officials who hold power in the national security apparatus, which includes numerous agencies. Many of those officials are seriously threatened by a Trump second term and may see his defeat as a matter of their own survival. As evidence of that, let us remember that Senate minority leader Charles Schumer has already threatened to try to depose Justice Barrett should she vote other than as Schumer dictates.
A final note. Many of us have loosely compared President Trump to the biblical figure King David. David, king of Israel, was the victim of his own "Deep State." He was actually driven off his throne for a time. However, in the end, he prevailed.
Keep faith. However this turns out, whatever the twists and turns and uncertainty, God always prevails in the end.