More or less, that's what this is. It's about Roy Moore. His opponent is irrelevant except as a way to stop Roy Moore, or convict those who support him.
Donald McClarey looks at some of the more obvious takeaways from this race.
My hunch is that the support Moore has is a result of many of things things pointed out on the list, but also the speed with which so many called for Moore to resign. For all those who insist that Moore's responses, statements, or the number of women who have come forward are why they're convinced he's guilty, we must remember that there was a tidal wave of calls for him to quit before any of those things were revealed.
Within a day, you had people from Washington to the press and liberal punditry, as well as the GOP, saying he needed to quit. No Moore statements, no subsequent accusations, no evidence - just people who didn't like him using accusations from almost half a century ago to achieved the desired results.
It's just a hunch, but I think there are still people in America a bit skittish about ruining someone's career based on accusations without evidence, even if they're someone we don't like. For those who are trying to build a new order based on post-truth, post-evidence living, where you can have your life or reputation ruined based only on accusations, that can be tough to understand. They see it as blind partisans who don't care if he raped girls or not. Quite frankly, some of the statements made by his supporters do give that impression.
Others, however, seem to stand firmly on the notion that before we ruin someone's life, or call on them to be punished, some form of due process - in or out of the courtroom - needs to be followed. Somehow, they think, we do need proof before someone is convicted. And if nothing else, I have to say that's a viewpoint I tend to hold.