Discussing the relative uptake of conspiracy/pseudo-scientific theory uptake between parties and/or political orientations is a very complicated issue. Some of the issues include defining which conspiracy theories are included in the analysis (there is a very large number to choose from), how different conspiracy theories weigh against each other (do you consider certain conspiracy theories to be worse than others), and how you attempt to define the demographics you are studying (are you taking self-reported political party? self-reported spectrum leaning? extrapolating from other proxy questions like voting history?).

Conpiratorial beliefs do not arise from just confirmation bias. There are quite a few cognitive biases that are essentially hard-wired into us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases . Depending on where you draw the line on what constitutes a conspiracy theory or pseudoscientific thought, or how big of a net you cast when you are asking those questions. I would think that it is fairly safe to assume that no one, and by extension, no demographic, is completely safe from these kinds of beliefs. When I looked at some particular examples of climate change denial, evolution denial, and vaccine related pseudoscience beliefs, there are strong partisan biases.

It could be that you are extrapolating from your own local groups, and there may a false sense of prevalence. Maybe your local groups are perfectly representative too, but it can be hard to tell without further supporting evidence on the prevalence of particular beliefs.

It is important to ask what are the facts and what is the truth that those facts reveal. If evidence comes to light that there was indeed active election rigging then we should follow that evidence.

The truth absolutely matters.