Fair. I'm generalizing. I was thinking of the specific election deniers that were boosted by democrats in the primaries, being viewed as easier to defeat in the general in competitive races. In that (admittedly small sampling), all have lost (or in Kari Lake's case, may lose but definitely did not decisively win)

For election deniers in general (this tracks only attorney generals, governors, and senators, we see the following:

Out of 12 election deniers running for attorney general, 6 lost, 2 remain too close to call. None of these candidates were incumbents

Out of 22 election denying governor candidates, 7 won re-election, of which 6 were incumbents. 3 remain too close to call, including incumbent Mike Dunleavy in Alaska. None of the losers or the other two uncalled races are incumbents.

Out of 19 election denying senate candidates, 10 won re-election, of which 5 were incumbents. 3 races are too close to call, none of whom are incumbent. None of the losers are incumbents.

So in general, being the republican or incumbent in a traditionally republican race is a far more winning factor than their denial of the election. Election denial was not a winning strategy in this election.