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.
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.
Try this: "That is like saying that before a car was smashed by a Semi, it had defective brakes. I'm pretty sure that the Semi collision was a bigger factor in devaluation than was the original problem with the brakes."
This causation thing is getting boring. The way the Titanic was built -- the design or architecture -- contributed to the sinking of the ship. Sure, it was an iceberg that sank the ship, but you can't dismiss all other contributing factors.
Elections are decided by a variety of factors. All of a candidate's weaknesses combine to contribute to his or her defeat. You can't say that potential weakness with one group or another is just a surface or cosmetic defect. Such weaknesses are indeed flaws and they can help sink a candidate.
I have heard nothing of this, and I have been swimming in Moore stories for weeks. From whence did you get this?
Search engines are your friend.
On the relative scale between him and Doug Jones, I would have to predict Moore would be more likely to assist in the draining.
Maybe, but you sound like you expect real change from Moore. I look at him and see the kind of old school Southern Democrat who helped create the swamp, not any sort of reformer.
But nothing anybody says is going to convince you.