Being vulnerable to scandal charges is a flaw. Not being able to shake the charges is another flaw. Hundreds of people run for office in every cycle, but Moore was one of the few who got hit with charges like this and couldn't just dismiss or disprove them.
He was certainly a "flawed candidate" once the knifes went in, but not so much prior to that!
From what I can see, Moore was trying to run as an old-fashioned Southern rural politician. Today, that means his margin for error was less than somebody who ran with a different strategy. He was "flawed" in comparison to somebody who took a different route.
He was already weak with urban/suburban voters and when enough rural voters stayed home, he lost. So he was flawed or potentially flawed, though the weakness wasn't fatal in the beginning.
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?
Politicians run away from people who get hit with charges like this. Look at what happened with Trump during the 2016 campaign.
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.
That's your opinion. Unfortunately, it's not always the case that politicians who are moral crusaders in one area are above reproach in others. Moore was already in trouble for denying that he was drawing a salary from a foundation that was paying him money (flawed candidate), so he may not have been the guy to drain the swamp.
If a scandal is constructed just to destroy them, no one is immune. Being vulnerable to a made up scandal is not a "flaw."
Not being able to shake the charges is another flaw. Hundreds of people run for office in every cycle, but Moore was one of the few who got hit with charges like this and couldn't just dismiss or disprove them.
In what manner is it possible to disprove charges from 38 years ago from an accuser who says there are no witnesses?
Today, that means his margin for error was less than somebody who ran with a different strategy. He was "flawed" in comparison to somebody who took a different route.
About 800,000 Trump voters stayed home, and you are talking about taking a "different route"? What route do you take when party officials tell you not to vote for a man?
So he was flawed or potentially flawed, though the weakness wasn't fatal in the beginning.
This is like saying that before a car was smashed by a Semi, it had dents in it. I'm pretty sure that the Semi collision was a bigger factor in devaluation than was the original dents.
Politicians run away from people who get hit with charges like this. Look at what happened with Trump during the 2016 campaign.
They didn't "run away", they loaded the cannon and pulled the lanyards for the other side!
Moore was already in trouble for denying that he was drawing a salary from a foundation that was paying him money
I have heard nothing of this, and I have been swimming in Moore stories for weeks. From whence did you get this?
so he may not have been the guy to drain the swamp.
On the relative scale between him and Doug Jones, I would have to predict Moore would be more likely to assist in the draining.