We can blame the media, blame the GOPe, blame the Democrat slime machine, etc. Bottom line: Moore was not a good candidate.
Geez, it's like "group think" or something! I really expected better from you. I've noted your writing and discernment in the past, and you seem to have eschewed your previously demonstrated abilities in signing off on this statement.
This position dramatically conflicts with the evidence (in the way of polls leading up to the accusations) that Moore was going to stomp Jones.
Moore was not a "bad" candidate until just the last few weeks. He was in fact an exceptionally good candidate by objective standards until these "out of the dark" allegations against him were put forth and spread by his political enemies, most especially many in his own party.
Do you have some way of discerning that bad accusations are going to appear out of nowhere to make a candidate 'bad"? Pray tell how you do this, so we can avoid any future incidents in which unprovable charges will be leveled against one of our people from 40 years ago. It would save us all a lot of time and trouble.
He took his handlers' advice and laid low for the last several weeks of the campaign, and that (plus Shelby's rejection) cost him the election.
Now you're getting closer to an objective analysis, though I don't think more campaigning by Moore would have changed anything. People had had a long time to make up their minds, and after the anti-Moore "preference cascade" spurred by his "allies" had already flipped so many people, it was unlikely that they would rethink their position with more rallies by Moore.
