asking moms if he could date their underage daughters when he was in his 30s, combined with all the other noise - this is quite a well coordinated effort by quite few women if its a hit job - would be more than enough to remove him from the ballot. In an ideal world, if rules allow, I'd keep the incumbent senator on for a few more months and call a new election.

The notion that women don't come forward for years, if ever historically, seems to be the nature of the beast. Long post to get into why that may be, but it is. Take Franken. There's some evidence there. Yet the woman did not come forward for more than a decade. So that really says nothing about the credibility of the witness/accuser - it says a lot about the effect the crime can have on its victims, the hold powerful people can have over them, and the way society has historically treated accusers.

A national, and really international, catharsis is going on. Victims are feeling empowered, and a floodgate has opened. So while your questions would be more than valid in a court of law, I think it will be awfully embarrassing for the state of Alabama if they elect this guy. It becomes a tragic comedy if he is then expelled from the senate. Which seems possible.

You are presumed innocent in a court of law. Moore has no more expectation of a presumption of innocence by the voters than you or I would have by our employers if damning accusations from multiple parties were leveled at us, if they thought it would be a problem for the company as a whole.