Libertarian Party of Colorado Chair Hannah Goodman reportedly said that she will support Republican Donald Trump over Libertarian nominee Chase Oliver in a recent interview with local Colorado media.
In a CPR News article on Monday exploring third party candidates running for Colorado’s fourth congressional district, Goodman, identified as the Colorado party chair, primarily discusses her dual campaign for both the upcoming special and general elections. However, during the interview, she also discloses to the publication her intention to vote for Republican former President Donald Trump over the Libertarian Party nominee.
“[Hannah] said she plans to vote for the presumed Republican candidate in the presidential election, Donald Trump, and said she isn’t concerned by his recent fraud conviction,” the article reads. “Goodman also brokered a deal with GOP Party Chair Dave Williams, in which the Libertarian Party promised to pull its candidate from any race where the Republican pledged to pursue certain policy aims.”
Chase Oliver, who secured the party nomination at the Libertarian National Convention last month, has come under considerable scrutiny for social positions he has taken in the past by both members who have similarly said they would support Republican Donald Trump and party affiliates who have stated they will not endorse his candidacy.
For context, the deal mentioned in the article refers to an arrangement announced by the Libertarian Party of Colorado last summer, in which the party said it had brokered an agreement with state Republicans to not field candidates in certain districts in exchange for those candidates signing a pledge to support key issues. Those specific issues can be read here.
Goodman’s BFF, Trump-backed state GOP chair Dave Williams, was just absolutely DEMOLISHED in the Republican primary for Colorado’s CD-5 by a 34 point spread. Utterly humiliating for Goodman at this point.
Yup, Trump pushed for and got/signed, the largest debt ceiling increase in the history of the nation (and now we have the prices at the grocery store to show for it), and well, that’s about as far from libertarian as one can get. So it’s no surprise that the MAGA Mice Men and their useful idiot Goodman would want him back in office?
“Hats matter.”
To be sure. And the “Chair” of the Colorado Libertarian Party should be wearing a dunce cap.
She says Chase Oliver and Mike Ter Mat did nothing to earn her vote. What did Donald Trump do? Advocate suspending the Constitution so he could have more power? Taking credit for the end of Roe v Wade? Threatening to start a war with Iran in order to improve his re-election chances? Urge people to violently protest the Constitutional transfer of power in 2021?
Quite a record for The Donald. Why would anyone concerned with freedom want to support that loser?
Socratic Gadfly,
Mega-Thanks for the heads up.
I would add that if this is not directly getting local LP members in public office (elective or appointive), it doesn’t excite me.
As it is–I’m on record for if things go wrong.
–MG
What does excited to see them loose us ballot access mean? What’s different in their platform from the party platform? Trump’s is closer? In what universe does Oliver get more votes than Kennedy in any state? Given that West, Stein and Terry are all likely to be on the Colorado ballot, wouldn’t they all be likely to come in ahead of Oliver there as well? Perhaps other candidates such as Claudia de la Cruz might come in ahead of Oliver in Colorado? Will he even be in the top ten there? So many questions, and I keep thinking of more…I better stop for now.
As I stated before, hats matter.
“I am not voting for [Chase Oliver] or [Mike ter Maat] They did nothing to earn my vote and they don’t own it. Try a better platform..”
What was it in their platform that upset her?
Per Jordan and contra Seebeck, I quote from Goodman’s “bio” on her Twitter account:
“The kids call me based ??Congressional Candidate for CD4 ? Chairwoman of the Libertarian Party of Colorado”
I think any reasonable person would make the inference she’s speaking officially.
To Seebeck’s point, that is a distinction some people may consider, and I tried to include that it was the CPR article that identified her as such. That said, Goodman has also expressed her thoughts on social media outside of the article.
Posting on X the same day the article ran, she said, “I am not voting for [Chase Oliver] or [Mike ter Maat] They did nothing to earn my vote and they don’t own it. Try a better platform, I don’t know what to tell you. I’m excited to see them loose us ballot access, that’s the only highlight for me on this campaign.”
Link for context: https://x.com/Hannah4Liberty/status/1798323099148144817
Let’s be clear here: Hannah was speaking as a candidate, not as LPCO Chair. Which hat is being worn matters, and she has every right as a candidate and an individual to not only vote for who she wants, but also to declare it–as does any other LP Member, or anyone else, for that matter. Was she speaking for LPCO? Clearly not, because the article was talking to Hannah Goodman, CD4 Candidate, not Hannah Goodman, LPCO Chair.
Gilson: The LPCO Bylaws, of which I am one of the primary authors over the years, require LPCO Board members only in their official capacity to support or endorse LP candidates post-nomination. See Article XI, Section 4, subsection i. They would not be up for any amendment until 2025.
Nothing Hannah has said is controversial when proper context is provided.
Keep in mind also that Colorado has gone disastrously blue over the past two decades, and will likely go for Biden, so Hannah voting Trump isn’t a big deal in Colorado anyway. In a state where the outcome for President is pretty much guaranteed to be Biden, Trump, Oliver, and then everyone else, Hannah stating she’s personally voting Trump is inconsequential, and only causes hand-wringing by those that are looking for something du jour to hand-wring over.
“The arrangement with Williams, if honored of course, gets far more done for the LP than fielding candidates that will never get elected.
Trump however is a very anti-libertarian endorsement to make. In 2024 at least. In 2016, Goodman might have gotten away with it. Perhaps even in 2020.”
Yes. These folks, and the Mises people, are two elections too late for this sort of bargain with the orange devil and his minions.
In fact, if we flashback to 2016, we can probably see that by running a strong Presidential candidate with liberal sentiments (Gary Johnson), the LP probably did more to elect Trump than Stein did. These folks have not thought this out very well.
Disappointed. Lemme know when Goodman tries to make the Colorado LP do like the Montana LP announced necessary.
That said, Michael? You know McAwful and the rest of the Mises Mice at LP National won’t do anything. And, with the Montana state party, ditto. (Greens, when the Alaska GP did that with The Body in 2020, decertified the Alaskans the next year. LP won’t do that, either.)
The arrangement with Williams, if honored of course, gets far more done for the LP than fielding candidates that will never get elected.
Trump however is a very anti-libertarian endorsement to make. In 2024 at least. In 2016, Goodman might have gotten away with it. Perhaps even in 2020.
Yikes! This is a lawsuit waiting to happen.
While the convention may endorse or recommend (in which case their first focus should be a fusion statute) , the LNC and state party boards are forbidden to do so. They may not take the side of contending LP candidates either. They’re supposed to be neutral and janitorial. I suggest they focus on their remit of developing neighborhood/local candidates and implementing direct democracy. as in Florida, and sponsoring a national conference or convention in alternating years.
This is generally in the by-laws or similar documents, but is LP policy for decades so any change of by-laws may be viewed as illegitimate and grounds for a lawsuit. In many states the LP’s signed enforceable legal agreements with the other parties on LP neutrality (usually involving fusionism). This was especially the case with small states. So one would carefully consult with an attorney well-versed in LP history first.