Chase Oliver Calls Libertarian Party Presidential Run 'Honor of My Lifetime'
The candidate also offered some choice words for his party.

While battleground states continue counting votes—and some may not have official results for some time—it seems that the Libertarian Party (L.P.) will fall short of its relative recent successes. The 2012, 2016, and 2020 presidential elections constituted three of the four highest vote totals in the party's history. The 2024 L.P. candidate Chase Oliver looks likely to underperform 2020's numbers, when candidate Jo Jorgensen won more than 1.8 million votes and 1.2 percent of the national total.
Speaking from his election night watch party in Dallas, Texas, Oliver tells Reason he isn't surprised that he fell short of other recent L.P. presidential tickets, but he has no regrets—and he has some choice words for his party.
"I think we did the best we could, considering there's been a lot of headwinds in this campaign," he says. "First and foremost, the two-party system is always trying to relegate alternative parties' voice[s]," and "internal disputes within the party…led to less than full-throated support from our national leadership."
"National party support is very important, especially in the initial couple of weeks to get a campaign on the right track. And we just didn't have that," he continues.
This was the first presidential election since the L.P.'s takeover by the Mises Caucus, an internal party faction more conservative than the previous rank and file. Michael Heise, the Mises Caucus founder who helped engineer the party takeover, endorsed former President Donald Trump last week in a post on X. Over the weekend, L.P. Chair Angela McArdle shared a pro-Trump video and added, "You know you wanna be a part of this. It is irresistible."
Oliver sees his campaign as indicative of the party's struggles, and he hopes it can turn around in the future: "Our campaign is not the low-water mark. In fact, we've been seeing a downward trend…because leadership has just not been able to retain membership. And I think that's due to the internal conflict. That's due to focusing more on shooting inward at each other than actually doing the professional party building. And I'm going to be looking forward, as an activist, as a lifetime party member, as a former candidate for president, to be looking to find members of the Libertarian Party who want to professionalize our operations and put us into a growth mode."
That said, Oliver says he does not have regrets about his experience. "Running as the presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party, the party that I love, for the principles that I stand by, has been the true honor of my life," he says. "Even with any headwinds that I faced, I know that I've done everything I can to try to spread the message of liberty in a positive way. I'm so thankful that I have a staff and volunteers across the country who have put in the work."
Would he run again in the future? "I think so," he says. "But what I need to do first is focus on building our party [so it] can properly support a presidential campaign the way we have in the past. And I think that's my work over the next four years…trying to identify people across the libertarian spectrum, in states across the country, who want to organize and really build our party up going forward, and not being the [junior varsity] league for the Republican Party, and not thinking that Donald Trump is what we have to settle [for] in this country."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Chasing freedom is a thankless job, Chase! Keep on chasing it, while most people focus, instead, on pussy-grabbing the enemy tribe!
I can't wait until Trump moves back into the White House and continues his far right authoritarian impulses, at which point I will laugh in the face of every Mises Caucus member who promised that a vote for Trump would be a vote for the Libertarian Moment. Hah!
It will be four years of tariffs, debt, inflation, trade restrictions, border walls, and nativism, as well as a culture of grudge seeking, political retribution, and demands to kiss the POTUS ring. None of this is libertarian in the slightest. Yet today the LP leadership is collectively masturbating over the election results.
And this is why I will not rejoin the LP.
Thanks Maddow!
90% of your fear is normal government.
By natives do you mean supporting legal immigration at approx 1.5M a year while not supporting illegal immigration? If so you’re a fucking idiot like Jeff. You probably also support taking from taxpayers to give them money like Jeff.
Hilarious you call our inflation by the way. What was it under Trump again? Who is talking of ending the Fed again?
Political retribution… like holding government actors accountable for the abuses you supported? Or is he going to use novel legal construction like the type you defended?
You won't rejoin the LP because your dems in sheep clothing wing was fucking embarrassed yesterday.
"continues his far right authoritarian impulses..."
I don't really agree with this. What impulses did he act on while President last time? The few dumb things he did pales in comparison to Biden's impulses (or his handlers').
"promised that a vote for Trump would be a vote for the Libertarian Moment."
That's a stretch. Most who voted for Trump did so as the lesser of two evils. And frankly, Oliver didn't represent libertarians well either.
"It will be four years of tariffs, debt, inflation, trade restrictions, border walls, and nativism, as well as a culture of grudge seeking, political retribution, and demands to kiss the POTUS ring. "
Most likely true. And even worse with Harris, except for the border walls and nativism. Instead you'd get virtue signaling and diversity above all, which is worse in my opinion.
Trump already had four years to build his "big beautiful wall"... and didn't. You're just going to get right wing virtue signaling.
Also, Donald Trump won because of black and latino votes. The "diversity" is coming from inside the house at this point. I am so looking forward the next four years of people desperately clinging to the idea that any day now The Donald is going to really do all the things he promised. "Someday, that perpetual liar will come through... but only for me."
Let's be real here. He's going to surround himself with sycophants and con men, just like he did the first time. He will take the company of absolutely anyone who sings his praises, no matter how execrable and rotten they may be. He will oust anyone he perceives as "disloyal", no matter how illegal or depraved the order they disobeyed was. He will nakedly and proudly engage in open grift and then absolve himself of the criminality of his actions.
He will do all of this and his fans will continue to cheer, because this clown is funnier than the other one.
Let’s be real here. He’s going to surround himself with sycophants and con men, just like he did the first time.
It’s going to be entertaining when the inevitable confrontation between Musk and Trump occurs. Based on the fact that he was actually clueless about Trump’s accusation of Obama not being a citizen when he was on Rogan, I think it will come as a shock to him that Trump played him as a useful idiot.
Hold your breath, please.
TDS-addled steaming shitpiles are heavy on the ground here.
Diversity is fine. It's pretty great even.
Diversity uber alles is not. Stop picking people on the basis of looking diverse, and just pick people on the basis of being people you like to be around. You'll be much happier.
TDS-addled shitpiles are heavy on the ground here.
"I can’t wait until Trump moves back into the White House and continues his far right authoritarian impulses,..."
Fuck off and die, TDS-addled steaming pile of shit.
The closet progressive set the party back nationally. Fortunately, America voted libertarian and not twinkertarian.
Jill Stein beat somebody!
RFK as well. Oliver was on the ballot in all but 3 states whereas RFK and Stein look to be on it in around 30 states each. He had the chance at way more voters and somehow lost a bunch of Libertarian party support.
I'm happy with the Mises caucus representing the L party and working with Republicans to increase the Freedom caucus representation. At this point I have little in common with left-libertarians and would rather see the party fold than have people like Oliver claiming to represent me.
I'm the same. Largely support the MC wing, despise the California dem wing focused on social issues and protections. Identitarian politics have infested that wing.
0.4%
Fewer votes than Jill Stein and RFK Jr, who wasn't willingly on any ballots.
That's due to focusing more on shooting inward at each other than actually doing the professional party building. And I'm going to be looking forward, as an activist, as a lifetime party member, as a former candidate for president, to be looking to find members of the Libertarian Party who want to professionalize our operations and put us into a growth mode."
It's an odd regret from one of the people focused on shooting at other libertarians and whose call to action is promising to do more of it. It shows no real introspection at all.
The true takeaway is that calling everyone who disagrees with your absolutism a racist is not winning message. Even those it appeals to will never support you since there is already a far more successful party running on that exact same message.
The true takeaway is that calling everyone who disagrees with your absolutism a racist is not winning message.
Maybe the racists should stop being racist. Such as, for example, LPNH troll Jeremy Kauffman who thinks that South African apartheid wasn't so bad after all.
I mean, you can't have it both ways. You can't both take deliberately outrageous and offensive positions, and then cry that you're a victim whenever anyone notices how outrageous and offensive those positions are.
Maybe the racists should stop being racist.
Note how his assertion implicitly re-asserts the principle that anyone disagreeing with absolutism does so for racist reasons. I wonder how people recognize him as a leftist?
Everyone but sarc. Then again sarc also calls everyone who disagrees with him racist.
Note how his assertion implicitly re-asserts the principle that anyone disagreeing with absolutism does so for racist reasons.
Notice how Marshal completely ignored and/or deliberately lied about what I wrote, and decided to just repeat his original assertion.
Jeremy Kauffman: Hey, maybe South African apartheid wasn't so bad after all.
Normal people: Umm, that sounds kinda racist.
Marshal: STOP CALLING HIM A RACIST FOR NOT BEING AN ABSOLUTIST! IT'S NOT FAIR!
No one expects anything from Jeffey except lies. Obviously my comment doesn't not refer to this person specifically, but Jeffey claims that because extremists will say anything. It's a standard propaganda technique to mis-apply principles to specific circumstances and claim they mean what they don't. The key here is the underlying assertion that if one racist exists the claim that not everyone is racist must be wrong. Logic has never been Jeffey's strong suit. But you can see why he liked O;liver so much, they're both so indoctrinated to believe everyone who thinks even a little different is a racist they aren't able to understand anything about anyone.
That's the key thing to note about people like him: they're so caught up in their hate they are unable to think clearly.
No, dipshit, the argument was about your lazy claim that the 'racist' charge was unfair, even though there are actual racists who deserve the label.
If you don't want to be called a racist, then don't be a racist, don't do racist things, and don't support racists. Pretty simple, really.
But you and your team always want to have it both ways: the permission to do outrageous things, as well as the immunity from criticism for those outrageous things.
Nobody buys your bullshit, jeff. There are a number of racist posters here, and you don't say boo to them.
Racism and xenophobia aren’t the same thing. I’ve rightly pointed out the fact that ML, Jesse and others share Trump’s xenophobia, and they routinely respond by claiming I accused them of racism.
As always I’m never sure if they’re stupid or lying.
To spell it out to the morons in the room, someone who’s racist against blacks hates black people. Period. While a xenophobe doesn’t have a problem with black people as a general rule. However those damn, dirty, cat-eating Haitians have got to go. And don’t you dare say those subhuman animals don’t eat cats. They eat cats. Proof? They’re immigrants from a shithole. That’s all the proof you need.
I guess my point is that it’s unfair to call Marshal a racist. He and Team Trump aren't racists. They're xenophobes.
There is nothing right about your assertions buddy. It is a word you throw out to avoid facts and intelligent arguments. Nothing more.
It is you denying wr have zero problem with legal immigration, as an example.
It is a lie you tell yourself to avoid intelligent analysis.
There it is again: "anyone who disagrees with my preference is X".
They just aren't smart enough to understand how anything works. Unfortunately they've learned racism accusations work so that's all they know how to do.
Or at least, those accusations did work. Maybe if leftists are taught they don't work they'll focus on coming up with better ideas than bribing people and promising to make those they hate pay the bill.
Someone should send sarc a bottle of Crown Royal. He needs it.
I just defended you and said you’re not racist you blithering idiot.
Unfortunately they’ve learned racism accusations work so that’s all they know how to do.
People who reflexively believe any derogatory story about immigrants, who hate immigrants for simultaneously being welfare do-nothings while also stealing jobs, who demean people simply because of where they are from, who attack entire cultures with baseless prejudices, and who want to see tens of millions of immigrants without papers rounded up like animals, those people are xenophobes. You know, people like you. But you’re not racist. No, I’m not accusing you of that. I'm pointing out your xenophobia.
Or are you going to lie and tell me your default position towards immigrants is not hate.
That's a fuck-ton of straw in one paragraph, bravo.
Yes, you called me a Xenophobe which is a stand in for racist. You should feel proud you learned a new word, less proud for believing others aren’t smart enough to see how you’re using it.
You only get to these contradictions by aggregating what many different people believe and then asserting it all came from the same person. This is completely amusing from someone who constantly whines that others refer to groups and not individuals – but only when discussing him and his allies! I must say I’m shocked to discover yet another standard you attack others for but don’t apply to yourself. Shocked.
Or are you going to lie and tell me your default position towards immigrants is not hate.
It’s revealing you haven’t presented here or ever identified even a single piece of evidence to support the claim I hate immigrants. Not one. But you say it anyway because you completely lack honestly or integrity. Facts just are not a relevant factor to you.
Go get yourself a bottle of Johnny Walker and embarrass yourself privately. Hmmm, tasty.
No douchebag, I said concluding everyone who opposes your policy can only do so for racist reasons is stupid, not that individual people are not racist.
Are you not smart enough to understand the difference, or not honest enough for it to matter?
And again with the team stuff from the person who whines about being recognized for what he is. The takeaway is that he applies not one single standard consistently between himself and those he hates, That's how you know his belief set is bullshit. If it could be justified with consistent standards he would use them.
concluding everyone who opposes your policy can only do so for racist reasons
That has never been my position, so you are just flat-out lying.
What I have said, is that many people will engage in a motte-and-bailey tactic in supporting a policy for racist/bigoted reasons, but use rationalizations to pretend that it is actually for non-racist/non-bigoted reasons. This tends to happen when those rationalizations are contradictory or illogical.
Does everyone do that? No. But a whole lot do.
Here is an example. Do you believe that housing shortages are caused, broadly speaking, by government regulations that artificially limit the supply of housing? I would hope the answer is yes, since that’s a pretty standard libertarian belief. HOWEVER, when the whole Haitian pet-eating saga was unfolding, it was commonly brought up that these Haitians were coming to Springfield and increasing demand for housing, making it more difficult for the current residents to afford to live. But instead of resorting to the standard libertarian response to a housing shortage – let’s reduce government regulations so that more housing becomes available in Springfield, then more people will be able to afford to live there – instead, the common response was “let’s kick out the Haitians”. Their argument was completely flipped around in this case. Why is that? Can you present a non-racist/non-bigoted reason for why a person would favor reducing government regulation to develop more housing opportunities, *except when it’s Haitians moving to Springfield*? Why?
That has never been my position, so you are just flat-out lying.
You've done it multiple times just in this thread, although in your defense maybe you're too stupid to understand what you've been asserting. To recap here's the original statement you disputed:
The true takeaway is that calling everyone who disagrees with your absolutism a racist is not winning message.
Oliver refers to everyone who disagrees with his preferred immigration policy as racist without limitation. I reference specifically this and only this.
Maybe the racists should stop being racist.
And then you here, without limitation, referred to this same group as racists.
Now you want to come back and insert some nuance because you're embarrassed you accidentally showed everyone what a terrible thinker and hack you are. But in typical Jeffey style you can't admit you fucked up and instead call other people liars when in fact you're lying. And you're lying not just in this thread but in another where you repeated the lie that I specifically defended the person only you are talking about and who is not part of the discussion.
This is the combination and dishonest hackery and whining that other are not nice to you that normals find despicable.
Maybe the racists should stop being racist.
You should talk to a guy here named butplug. Also mtrueman.
What's hilarious is Jeff pushes the racist post modernist theories that minorities can't do math and can't get IDs.
Well there Jeff, you seem silent each time Pluggo the Pedophile goes Klan mode when he posts about Tim Scott. Start with your own team.
Also, how the fuck has your paymaster not fired you? You absolutely suck at endearing folks to your issues.
The true takeaway is that calling everyone who disagrees with your absolutism a racist is not winning message.
While calling everyone who disagrees with your absolutism a leftist/socialist/communist/fascist seemed to be the winning strategy.
Since I am not an absolutist your comment makes no sense. But then you never could think for yourself.
I am not an absolutist
*spit-take*
I was talking about Trump you narcissist.
*spit-take*
Schlitz all over your floor now?
He can't afford schlitz.
I don't remember Trump calling Dems fascist, although I remember them calling him one to no criticism from you. Maybe you should stick to the facts instead of mistaking what you wish were true for what is true.
Trump won by forthrightly criticizing the Dem's crazy and by being the most clearly opposed to them. That's it.
Trump: Nancy Pelosi made a 'fascist statement'
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/448534-trump-accuses-pelosi-of-making-a-fascist-statement/
Trump: Biden is "surrounded by fascists"
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/11/trump-rally-new-jersey-trial-fascists-00157482
Tomorrow he'll lie and say Trump never called any Democrats fascist.
Why is sarc always talking about what I will do? Is it because talking about what I have done won't support his point so he just makes it up?
Kind of pathetic.
Oh the hypocrisy. You get called a leftist for:
Supporting lawfare.
Advocating higher taxes.
Defending welfare based open borders.
Saying democrats respect the constitution.
Spending 95% of your posts to attack yhr GOP, even in articles critical of Democrats.
Pushing Trump is Hitler.
Pushing every Democrat lie.
Pushing Psaki talking points.
You’re just too dumb to realize where you align.
Yeah but, CNN told me that Trump might do something.
Especially weird as it is the MC who talks about down ballot work over presidential vanity plans. And chase hates the MC.
Chase Oliver was the epitome of an Unserious candidate, and it showed in the atrocious performance of LP nationally. The LP really needs to get their act together. It is sad to see the decline.
Maybe if the LP leadership stopped endorsing and campaigning for the candidates of other parties. I dunno, must maybe?
Republicans are no longer conservative, and Libertarians are no longer libertarian.
"Republicans are no longer conservative, and Libertarians are no longer libertarian."
Amen, sad to say, on both counts...
But what did he do to campaign? Did he put out ads or youtube videos? Did he go on podcasts? Besides the one reason interview I haven't seen or heard anything from him or his team. That seems like a personal failure.
The LP is an unserious party; no way it ever has any effect at all; filled with dumb asses like brandyshit.
<1%
Great job buddy.
“Shut up homophobe”, jeff explained.
“Tu quoque binary ad hominem” drunky blurted out in between taking gulps from his double-fisted forties.
<1%
Hell, he got fewer votes than the guy who dropped out and publicly begged people to not vote for him.
Fifth place for fifth base?
Fvck all you Progressatarians
Next time, lubbertarians, maybe nominate someone whose name doesn’t sound like a background character in “Love Story.”
"I think we did the best we could..."
If getting fewer votes than the guy who dropped out and was only on the ballot in 33 states...where he publicly implored people to NOT vote for him...is "the best" you can do then it's high time to start some serious introspection.
Hey, you try running against a Kennedy.
Sunk cost fallacy definition: Lifetime LP membership as an incentive to put lipstick on that corpse
In 2020 Federal and State governments went batshit insane with authoritarian decrees shutting down businesses, locking people in their homes, and forcing people to take brand new vaccines or lose their jobs. The LP nominee's position on all of this was that it's all fine as long as these things are imposed by "private businesses", IE the Government using its regulatory power to force private businesses to do their bidding on things the Government isn't allowed to do.
So when he got handed the easiest possible issue to be on the right side of, he sided with the Democrats. When the guy who would eventually win the election actually showed up to speak at the LP convention, instead of taking the opportunity to try and influence him to move in the LP's direction on some issues, Chase's wing of the party tried to shout him down, prevent him from speaking, threw tantrums and called other members of the LP "right wing fascists."
This has got to stop, or the LP needs to just fold up and go home. I realize this is gonna upset some folks, but political alignment these days is what it is: even the most leftward libertarian is functionally on "the right" right now.
Back to 0.4% for the LP. I'm glad they keep fighting the good fight, but I don't see the harm in putting forth more moderate candidates with actual leadership experience (government or corporate) who might move things in the right direction and appeal to more than the libertarian purists.
The LP candidate took a pounding last night. He also did poorly in the election.
I think Chase Oliver's failure is actually a libertarian party success.
1) Republicans, and the rest of the country, are much more in favor of legalized marijuana than ever before.
2) Trump is the most moderate on abortion the GOP has had since the 70s.
3) Massive amounts of the electorate are anti-intervention and it played out at the polls. Trump is seen as the "no new foreign wars" candidate. (Hopefully he holds to that)
That's three significant issues that kept voters from casting ballots for a major party candidate that were broken in this cycle. You had a major candidate come out and court the libertarian vote by, among other things, promising to pardon Ross Ulbricht.
Trump is not a libertarian, but the attempts to court the libertarian vote are a libertarian WIN.
As an outsider to the Libertarian party with libertarian views, the take over of the LP was driven by the complete lackluster and ineffectual results of the old guard. Has the new guard been perfect, no, however they did generate more exposure for the LP than all previous attempts and probably more than all of them combined.
The fact that Chase Oliver became the nominee dampened the exposure and his ineffectual campaign illustrates why the take over was necessary in the first place.
The goal is to make things more libertarian, not to pretend to stand on the moral high ground, be irrelevant and unheard, so nothing is ever accomplished. Change occurs incrementally and the Libertarian party needs to become realistic.
Take the wins when you can and work to persuade normal people from where they are at instead of demanding purity and refusing to compromise instead of compromising on some issues in order to achieve some wins on other things.
Chase Oliver represents the old unbending ineffectual part of the LP which will never accomplish anything of value other than stroking their own egos and battling with each other on who is more pure.
I as an independent was not willing to waste my vote on Chase Oliver when voting for RFK Jr, who is no longer running, endorsed another candidate represents more of a meaningful change than Chase Oliver does.
Chase represents a pie-in-the-sky non-acheivable in this election cycle with all the worst elements of leftist wokeness added in. I prefer to waste my vote in a more meaningful fashion than the total waste that Chase Oliver represents.
Chase Oliver was a dishonor to the Libertarian Party. Crawl on back to Obama with your BS libertarian cosplay.
He received fewer votes nationwide than RFK Jr, who was only on the ballot in the few states where the progressive admin fought to keep him there, thinking it would hurt Trump, after he withdrew, and stopped campaigning.
Absolutely pathetic candidate, and totally incapable of realizing why he performed worse.
This should also put to death the idea that multi-party will happen in the US.
You're stuck with two, make it work for you.
The Chair of the LP weighs in on Chase Oliver's candidacy:
https://x.com/angela4LNCChair/status/1854237039925076048
This was a tough year to run third party, but Chase did an excellent job of conveying the principles of the party. I thank him for his efforts.
I voted for Oliver.