So the National Enquirer accuses Cruz of having affairs. Thus far, this story doesn't seem to have any legs. I think there are several reasons for that:
i) The National Enquirer lacks credibility. That doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong, but there's no presumption that it's right. Every week, as you wait in line at the checkout stand, you're subjected to hyperbolic headlines. The print equivalent of clickbait.
ii) I've read that two of the named women in the story have denied the allegations.
iii) Another problem is how the allegations cut against the grain of Cruz's dorky image. These aren't accusations of harassment, but affairs. Sexual harassment involves unwanted overtures, but affairs are consensual. Cruz's dweebish demeanor makes him an implausible ladykiller. I'm not saying it can't be true, yet he seems miscast for the role that the National Inquirer has assigned to him.
iv) But suppose, for the sake of argument, that the charges are true. Let's further assume that Hillary will be the Democrat nominee:
Given a choice, I'd vote for a vicious candidate with virtuous policies over a vicious candidate with vicious policies.
What is more, I'd vote for a vicious candidate with virtuous policies over a virtuous candidate with vicious policies.
When I vote for a candidate, that's not an endorsement of the person. That just means I think they have better policies. The pertinent question is not, in the first instance, is he (or she) a good or bad person, but will he do good things for Americans or bad things to Americans. It's less about his personal morality than the morality of his presidential initiatives.