Everyone's got something to be embarrassed about. Especially politicians.
But this was Roy Moore's eighth election, and only now the 30-year-old allegations come out? And they're automatically true? Because they're leveled by women?
Riding the wave of #MeToo, people are giving it a different weight.
You are right, the specifics about Moore's situation are not proven, but we both have been around long enough to know how prevalent this is and how easily it has been swept under the rug until recently.
In regard to Moore, whether it is true or not, there are enough other FACTS about the nutcase that should have made him unelectable anyway. Take for example him currently waiting on God to tell him he lost the election.... 
Yes, it has been swept under the rug, but it's dangerous to swing the other way to where we believe accusations without evidence. Emmit Till, anyone?
People can vote against anyone for whatever reason they want, false accusations, looney behavior, whatever. And Roy Moore is a character, to be sure.
I'm just not crazy about otherwise seemingly rational people who really seem to believe the accusations are fact.
Having dealt with the "perception is reality" wave for a number of years in work, and being fairly close to the Duke Lacrosse near linching, I know full well what happens with the good intentioned "rational" folks. Probably the bigger problem is that most of us "know" that many in politics, business leadership, the clergy....whatever positions of power have long fostered a real tolerance of "boys" bad behavior. Hell, nobody batted an eye when we elected the groper in chief....does anyone doubt he's done all he's been accused of and more? There are plenty of recordings of him celebrating that exact thing, and what really creeps me out are the comments about his daughter. People were OK giving a pass on all of that.
Just because someone gets elected doesn't mean they got a pass. There is no objective standard for "electability." People can vote for who they want for whatever reason they want. The only requirement for the US Senate, to take but one example, is that the candidate must be 30 years old, a citizen of the US for 9 years, and an inhabitant of the state that elects them. That's it. Being a felon, a pedophile, a murderer, or even insane or mentally deficient are not disqualifying factors except in the minds of some percentage of the electorate.
There's evidence that Trump has been a sexual harasser. People can decide that disqualifies him from office, or they can decide it doesn't, or they can decide it's less important than other factors. Whatever.
My point is, the obvious evidence of Donald Trump's behavior toward women, and the probability that a lot of other politicians behaving the same way, isn't an indicator of Roy Moore's behavior, sans any corroborating evidence.
