Incidentally I agree that you should not accept allegations without support. But that’s for the voters to decide on Election Day. The voters have to determine what allegations are true and whether they are relevant. Some candidates are more susceptible to this kind of smear campaign than others. It’s the responsibility of the primary voters to pick a candidate who can beat it.
That would be fine were it not for those urging them to decide on the basis of allegations. Until such has been proven, you do not urge your own voters to believe such allegations. You stay out of it.
Some candidates are more susceptible to this kind of smear campaign than others.
There are a lot of people who just love the idea that a person who is very "Christian" in their public life is a hypocrite, and they dance with glee at the opportunity to encourage the belief that all people who publicly advocate Christianity are hypocrites. They want to find hypocrites because it buttresses their own moral relativity and moral failings.
They enthusiastically seize on the slightest of evidence to prove what they want to believe anyways. So yes, a candidate that publicly advocates for Christian ideas and beliefs is a lot more susceptible to this kind of smear campaign. It's what a lot of people want to believe anyway.
It’s the responsibility of the primary voters to pick a candidate who can beat it.
That's not at all reasonable or fair. There is no possible way for primary voters to know there was about to emerge a disgusting scandal involving their candidate. The people who did know were the Democrats who deliberately held back this smear campaign until it was impossible to prevent Moore from being the Candidate.
They did so tactically and with deliberate malice aforethought.
Our side was just stupid for falling for it.