These things won’t go anywhere either.
There is a high probability you are right. However, it is not for lack of a legal basis, but for the courts' unwillingness to adapt their "standing" doctrine to an apparent abuse of the US electoral system. Legal "culture" is enormously powerful. Raw legal logic cannot win the day without finding some seam in legal culture through which it can pass.
Which is precisely the advantage in bringing these NBC challenges at the ballot access level, because that is where they should have been brought the first time to circumvent the standing issues that have plagued the after-the-fact cases.
Furthermore, the quasi-judicial bodies that determine ballot challenges are not reliably embedded in traditional legal culture. They can be all over the map, from totally predictable political machines to a loose collection of part-timers who may actually think seriously about the issues presented.
So, while I do rate your prediction as very likely to come true, it is not guaranteed. It's the right place in the process to bring the objection, and if the venue is just right, who knows?
Absolutely right. What I wanted to say, but probably better put.
Great post and thanks for articulating a more in-depth understanding of the process. I’m hopeful. Let’s cross our fingers...