You say that so confidently. Follow the thread for Pete's sake. Here's what I was responding to:
Establishment Republicans stayed home or wrote-in the name of other candidate.
If the Republican Establishment is thousands of people in just one state, it doesn't make sense to talk of a Republican Establishment. It wasn't moneybags and lobbyists who didn't come out to vote for Moore. It was ordinary Republican voters -- at least enough of them to make a difference.
Attacking him as a reprobate goes way beyond acknowledging that someone is in opposition to your policy positions. They don't even hit Democrats that hard. They were out for blood with Roy Moore. He was more than just someone with whom they disagreed on policy positions, they treated him like a serious threat.
If it was just about a policy dispute, they would have given him support. They thought he was unstable and they were scared that they'd spend years hearing about things he did and said. They didn't want to be saddled with these charges for year after year.
Seriously, I am at a loss as to how people can say "flawed candidate" instead of "Accusations of child molestation and rape."
Flaw number one was that he couldn't shake the accusation. Once voters saw that maybe they detected other flaws.
But you are completely ignoring *WHY* Republican voters didn't come out to vote for Moore. You are trying to sell this mantra that he was a "flawed candidate", instead of acknowledging the clear truth that he was a candidate fatally wounded by the actions of Democrat operatives and Republican backstabbers. What man could survive a knife in the front from Democrats, and another knife in the Back from establishment and Republican party office holders?
He was certainly a "flawed candidate" once the knifes went in, but not so much prior to that!
If it was just about a policy dispute, they would have given him support. They thought he was unstable and they were scared that they'd spend years hearing about things he did and said. They didn't want to be saddled with these charges for year after year.
I have no doubt that they regarded him as a hokey hickish embarrassment who would give them reams of bad press over the years, because there would always be a Democrat operative there with a microphone to record any kooky thing he might say which they could use against the party.
But this justifies portraying him as a child molester and rapist? This justifies treating him as if the charges were actually true rather than accusations?
I have said and others have said that the more likely probability is they regarded him as a threat to "business as usual" in Crony ran Washington DC. He would have made a stink every time they tried to do something he considered wrong, dubious and unethical. He would have been a Canary in the Stinking pit that is the Washington DC money mine.
They had blood hatred for him, and not because he would embarrass them. He was going to be "difficult" to deal with, and they wanted none of it.
Flaw number one was that he couldn't shake the accusation. Once voters saw that maybe they detected other flaws.
It's pretty hard to shake the accusation when your own party treats you exactly as if they believe all the accusations against you are true, even going so far as to urge other members of the party to vote for the baby murdering Democrat.