I mean, we very obviously do not. Public support for the president and the congress are both well below 50%.
For the second time, emails, text messages, recordings, etc. If someone is being continuously harassed, and they have an opportunity to gather physical evidence of that harassment, they probably will.
Thank you for clarifying what you mean when you say "physical evidence." So now we're down to a standard where there must have been some sort of written communications or a tape recording. Well guess what, harassers/gropers/rapists/molesters only rarely memorialize their conduct in writing. Almost never, in fact. In a small percentage of cases, someone might have secretly made a tape recording, though it's not going to be admissible in court.
The case of Moore perfectly illustrates why you don't always need anything other than witness statements. First, we've got 9 accusers now. The number of accusations alone tends to increase the probability that at least some are true. While that wouldn't help in a court proceeding to prove that any given individual is telling the truth, it certainly matters in the court of public opinion when the issue is whether the accused is guilty of some misconduct rather than none. Second, dozens of people have stepped up to corroborate parts of the stories of the accusers, including the fact that the accuser told them about the accusations decades ago, and witnessing Moore repeatedly hitting on the person who claims Moore later tried to rape her. Third, we have Moore caught lying at least twice in his denials, claiming a restaurant which existed at the time did not exist, and claiming one accuser had contact with him later on when she did not. Fourth, we have Moore trying to character assassinate accusers by bringing up totally irrelevant issues like the number of times they've gotten a divorce. This smacks of the desperation of a guilty man.
Yet in all of that, there is no physical evidence, no written communications, no tape recordings. The solitary exception here is the yearbook signing, but that isn't necessary to rationally conclude that Moore is very likely guilty.
This simple formulation of "he said/she said" that seems to worry so many people is rarely the case in the real world. If that is literally all there is - a single accusation with no corroboration and no way to compare the credibility of the accuser to that of the accused - then I agree that it's problematic to assume guilt, but that is rarely the case.