the thing about the liberals running female candidates is that they've run themselves into a contradiction around it because so much of their vote relies on winning over religious minorities via identity politics.

it's actually far worse here because the demographics swing that much more towards what the apparatchiks call "diversity". but, when your aphorism of "diversity" is actually 70% in key ridings, you're just blurring the facts by using that kind of language.

the liberals are trying to build a political base on a coalition between mostly white feminists and mostly brown religious groups. it's a total contradiction. and, while the white feminist groups may help strengthen wins in areas they would have already won (a triviality in the system.), the actual swing ridings are mostly focused around these mostly brown religious voters.

it's kind of similar to the kind of coalition that the republicans tried to build between moderates and evangelicals, and we see how that turned out.

the reality is that their electoral strategy means that they can't win with a female leader, and it's not clear that they understand that; if you want to build a coalition largely around religious groups, you're going to need to run a male leader to keep their interest.

so, what's left? leftists are going to hate chrystia freeland. the religious groups won't vote for a woman. so, you're left with this milquetoast suburban white female vote that is perhaps very excited about freeland, but should realize they live in a bubble around it.

freeland may end up as this generation's kim campbell, in the end - she may become pm for a few weeks or months on her way to massive defeat.

but, there's a reason that the uk has seen seen female conservative pms and has not seen female labour pms.

and, i suspect that the first serious female pm in canada will be a conservative.