Charlie Cook of the Cook Political Report laments that folks are judging Kavanaugh's guilt or innocence based on our party affiliation. Cook brings up Gore v. Bush in 2000 in Florida as a similar instance.
In one sense I disagree with him. I'm a conservative, but I have no idea whether Kavanaugh is guilty and I strongly object to the presumption of guilt when there's no corroborating evidence. I can't be alone in that. So to say that Republicans think he’s innocent and Democrats think he’s guilty seems simplistic.
And it's complicated as well by the fact that it's alleged to have happened over 30 years ago in high school. As Rod Dreher has said, "I do not understand why the loutish drunken behavior of a 17 year old high school boy has anything to tell us about the character of a 53 year old judge. By God’s grace (literally), I am not the same person I was at 17. This is a terrible standard to establish in public life."
On the other hand, there’s the 2000 Florida election. It’s actually more similar to Kavanaugh confirmation than I first thought. In both cases there was a controversy towards which the underlying truth would be hard or impossible to find.
For Florida, most observers say that Bush probably would’ve won if a limited statewide recount were allowed by the Supreme Court to go forward. But we’ll never know for sure, and even if a limited recount were done Democrats would’ve complained that a broad recount of all disputed ballots statewide was not done.
For Kavanaugh, Democrats would prefer an investigation of months or years, preferably one they have some power to oversee. And even then there’s no guarantee any sort of definitive proof would be reached.
In both cases one can say that the absence of hard data, of facts, leads people to retreat to their respective political corners. Duh, and why shouldn’t they? It's far more troubling when people cling to something obviously false because of their political ideology rather than something that is disputed.