Actually you can say the same thing about Biden and his voters.
This division made both sides absolutely ignore the flaws of their candidates and focus only on the flaws of their enemy. It's like "I dont care about winning, I only care about the other side losing".
You could say that. You could say anything you want, but that doesn't make it true. Give me an example of Biden doing something even remotely close to telling people that a virus wasn't a major threat when concrete evidence shows that he knew that to be a lie.
This is all Wisconsin law, not federal law. Other examples of courts deciding to put a person on the ballot after the time has passed can be found, including explicit state laws to the contrary. Most infamously in 2002 when the New Jersey Supreme Court said that Lautenberg could be put on the after the previous Democrat had simply dropped out (ethics issues in New Jersey, I know you're shocked) and party bosses decided Lautenberg should fill the role about 35 days before the election in direct violation of New Jersey law.
Yes... which is why I said the Supreme Court case doesn't govern. But courts can refer to any other court they like for guidance, provided that doesn't conflict with a higher court in their jurisdiction. Most courts will look to the Supreme Court before any state courts. The court declining a case does not mean they approve of the result. The Lautenberg case is probably distinguishable anyway, but that's irrelevant.