Thanks. I attribute that mostly to some poor wording on my part, where I said "But I do not think he has a right to that position" to mean "he's not entitled". Unfortunately it's easily misinterpreted as "so should not get it".
> the chances of any investigation having any guilty/innocent resolution, given that the alleged crime happened 35 years ago and even very recent rapes basically boil down to he said/she said, is very low
That may be, but accusations such as this deserve to be investigated. In the general sense because someone is accusing someone else of (what is usually charged as) a felony assault, and this specific case because we do not want someone like that in power, for multiple reasons (even if we assume he's entirely changed, the blackmail potential if proof does surface is problematic).
> I've seen no blow to credibility to anyone, despite there having been quite a few highly-publicised rape cases that were proven to be false.
I think it's a matter of opportunity and reason. Most accusers probably aren't linked to (or more importantly and accurately, able to be implied as linked to) a coherent adversarial cause backed by an organization and ideology.
What that basically means is that next time, instead of a nominee on the stand talking about what sounds like a conspiracy theory about the Clintons and Democrats doing a concerted smear campaign that isn't true, they'll be able to point at a specific prior instance as evidence. That's extremely powerful.
It would suck for him if innocent, but that is politics, and it definitely is something he accepted as a possibility along with the nomination. But I do not think he has a right to that position, and the nation's well-being comes far-ahead of any sort of right he might expect anyway. Serving is a privilege, we should not all suffer for his privilege.