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.
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.