Libertarian Party nominee Chase Oliver was voted the winner of the Free and Equal Elections Foundation presidential debate held last Friday during FreedomFest. A poll was organized by the Foundation following the debate, with Oliver winning in the first round of voting.
According to the poll, which began that night and ran until Monday, Chase Oliver cleared the threshold to win outright on the first round of voting. The post-debate poll was conducted using ranked-choice voting and utilized the Free and Equal Elections Foundation’s Assistant App, a program designed by the Foundation that logs individual votes on the blockchain to mitigate attempts to artificially influence results.
Over 1,800 individuals participated in the poll, with 51.39% selecting Oliver as their first choice for who won the debate. Oliver surpassed Green Party candidate Dr. Jill Stein, who received 42.32% of the total, and Constitution Party nominee Randall Terry, who received 6.29%. Due to the poll producing a winner on the first round of voting, second and third-choice preferences for the various candidates were not necessary and are not known.
Editorial Note: The original version of this article stated that Chase Oliver narrowly won the debate poll. It should have more clearly indicated that Oliver narrowly surpassed the threshold to win outright on the first round of voting, which required a majority of votes cast. He otherwise led his nearest competitor by nine points. We have corrected the error for clarity and apologize for any confusion this may have caused.
The Free and Equal Elections Foundation held the debate, which was its third of the election cycle, as part of FreedomFest in Las Vegas, Nevada. In addition to Oliver, Stein, and Terry, debate organizers also invited Republican former President Donald Trump, Democratic President Joe Biden, and independents Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Dr. Cornel West; however, they did not accept. The debate was moderated by Foundation founder Christina Tobin and Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky.
The Free and Equal Elections Foundation has also since announced that it will be hosting a fourth presidential debate in September, although further information is not yet available.
I missed the anthem. It sounds like I didn’t miss much.
I didn’t see anything wrong with how any of them were dressed.
Calling RFK JR chicken made total sense. That’s what you do when someone refuses to “debate down” to debate you. His perspective is that he still might make the September main stage, so he doesn’t want to put himself on the undercard.
West wouldn’t have even been debating down by any measure I’ve seen, other than maybe because the establishment fake news gives him more mentions and poll inclusion than he has earned, but then again Stein is typically included in those as well.
To understand Terry’s strategy , see the faq on his website.
https://www.terry2024.com/faqs
Read that and you should be able to see what he’s doing and why.
No way Jose! Randall Terry ran away with it.
Stain’s views about Israel are total nonsense. The left’s siding with the Arab/Muslim side stems from Stalin calculating that they have a lot of countries and Israel only has one, giving the USSR more allies in the cold war.
Israel is protecting itself. Hamas is using Gaza civilians as human shields and then paints the resulting collateral damage – 5 figures in a 7 figure population – as a genocide. In reality, if Israel wanted a genocide of the 7 million or so Arabs in Israel, West Bank and Gaza, it could do that. Instead, the 2 million or so (vs 8 million or so Jews) in Israel have the best standard of living and most rights of Arabs anywhere in the middle east , or than people of any ethnicity in any majority Muslim nation.
The Arab population is actually increasing faster than the Jewish population. Some genocide. Even in Gaza, 1-2% dying in a war which Hamas started because Hamas is using them as human shields is not genocide. How many people die(d) in wars in Syria, Yemen, Libya, Sudan, Iraq, Somalia, etc, etc?
Hamas wants death to Israel and America. Americans, especially American Jews, who side with a terrorist quasigovernment that openly wants actual genocide of us (Jews anywhere and everywhere, Americans of any ethnicity or religion, Europeans) is beyond stupid.
“The singing of the National Anthem was okay but in the future can we have someone sing the anthem in the classical style?”
Yes, thank you! What is it with nobody being willing to platform a normal rendition any more. It’s always strange avant-garde performance art these days. See also https://notthebee.com/article/this-is-maybe-the-worst-rendition-of-the-national-anthem-ive-ever-heard
And if you absolutely have to do something weird and artsy, then at least get someone actually talented like this guy: https://x.com/LibertyLockPod/status/1756483951735046249
“but calling Robert F Kennedy, Jr. chicken . . . I did not feel or get it. Did anyone else?”
RFK spent a lot of time and energy trying to get into the CNN debate with Trump and Biden (and rightly so). When they kept him out, he did his own live responses to the CNN debate questions with the same speaking time as them moderated (skillfully though rather more strictly than CNN) by John Stossel (which good for him). But to then not consider other third party/independent candidates worthy of debate is very hypocritical. I don’t think it’s because RFK is scared to debate them, but because he thinks himself above it. He and Cornel Sanders were both featured speakers at Freedom Fest, so they were already there. How much time and effort would it have been to join the debate? It may not be cowardice, but it still looks very weak.
“The Ukrainian people have a right to defend themselves from an invasion by Russia. The Libertarian Parties of Poland and Spain agree with this.”
And the people of Donbass have the right to defend themselves from an invasion by “Ukraine”. I don’t know about Spain, but in Poland libertarians (e.g. Janusz Korwin-Mikke) fully support Russia coming to the defense of victims of “Ukraine”‘s occupation and genocide.
“Chase had a problem keeping control of his time and there were times he was told your time is up. He should work on time management for the next debate.”
What?! Chase Oliver was the only one of the three who never went overtime and was never cut off. He sometimes seemed to be rushing to get through his talking points but always stayed within time.
“This was a poor choice especially since there are other issues voters are concerned about”
It was certainly a choice, but a defensible one, given that abortion is the leading cause of death today and, if you want to view it the way Terry does, the largest scale genocide in history. From that perspective abortion dwarfs every other issue.
“‘Destroy the Democratic Party.’ Why?”
That is his platform: “Defend Children, Defeat Biden and Destroy the Democrat Party!”
Because of their pro-abortion stance.
“Is the Republican Party better than the Democrat Party?”
That’s the million dollar question. According to Terry: Yes, it is. In my own opinion: No, currently it is not anymore – neither Trump and those who still support him nor Never Trumpers.
See also:
https://notthebee.com/article/eric-trump-likens-the-pro-life-fight-to-worrying-about-a-spot-on-the-wall-in-the-basement-while-the-roof-is-leaking
https://notthebee.com/article/rnc-platforms-porn-star-founder-of-slut-walk-and-a-prayer-to-a-pagan-god-at-the-convention
“Randall’s time management was worse than Chase’s. He kept getting admonished because he kept speaking after his time was up. He should work on his time management before the next debate.”
His time management certainly wasn’t as good as that of Chase Oliver, but it was far better than that of Jill Stein. She went overtime far more often and far longer than Terry. When Terry got admonished he shut up. But with Stein they actually started to turn off her microphone halfway through the debate. She is the only one with whom they were forced to do that, because she just wouldn’t stop going on and on every time her clock ran out. Oliver was the only one who never had to be interrupted, let alone muted.
“Robert F Kennedy Jr. and Dr. Cornell West should have participated in this debate. The two party establishment does not care that you decline to participate in a an alternative presidential candidates debate. They will not allow you to crash their party and participate in their presidential candidates debate.”
Hear, hear!
The big winner of the alternative presidential candidates is debate is Jill Stein, coming in second is Chase Oliver, and third is Randall Terry.
The moderators were okay but Christina Tobin could have used an image consultant. The dress she was wearing did not make the cut and was distracting. She could have worn a navy colored 100% wool women’s business suit that would have been more appropriate for the event. Moderator Thomas Massie was also okay but being a Republican Congressman wasn’t having him moderate a conflict of interest? It seams the candidates did not have any issues with Thomas Massie moderating the debate. If I was a candidate I would have objected. The singing of the National Anthem was okay but in the future can we have someone sing the anthem in the classical style?
Jill Stein was very well dressed (she looked presidential) and was articulate. Jill sounded as if she knew what she was talking about. I know, I know I do not agree with all her views but she was articulate. She was also able to keep control of her time and did not need to be told your time is up. She talked about Israel and I somewhat agree with her views concerning Israel but can someone be against foreign aid to Israel without saying what many consider to be anti-sematic statements.
Chase Oliver could have used an image consultant. His tie looked as if it did not fit (it was not snug against the shirt collar). As to the suit he could have worn a pastel grey color Zenga. He called Robert F Kennedy Jr. chicken for not participating in the debate. It might be true, Robert F Kennedy, Jr. and Cornell West should have participated, but calling Robert F Kennedy, Jr. chicken . . . I did not feel or get it. Did anyone else? Chase’s views concerning a non interventionist foreign policy I agree with but similar to the criticism of Jill Stein can Chase be against foreign aid to Israel without making what many consider anti-sematic and anti Jewish statements. As to Ukraine call for ending taxpayer funding for the war in Ukraine without making anti Ukrainian statements. The Ukrainian people have a right to defend themselves from an invasion by Russia. The Libertarian Parties of Poland and Spain agree with this. Chase also did not talk about education. We have one of the worst educational system of any industrialized nation and we did not hear his solutions to improving education. Chase had a problem keeping control of his time and there were times he was told your time is up. He should work on time management for the next debate.
Randall Terry was focused primarily on the issue of abortion. It might be a wrong we should end (I am pro choice) but just about every question he was asked he had to bring abortion up. This was a poor choice especially since there are other issues voters are concerned about such as inflation, the high cost of living, immigration, crime increases in major cities, foreign policy, the homeless crisis, high interest rates, the high cost of home ownership, and education. Randall’s opening statement was very poor as all he talked about was abortion. He never answered the fundamental question as to why he should be elected president and why we should vote for him. Randall Terry kept saying, “Destroy the Democratic Party.” Why? It made no sense and I do not understand the purpose of the statement. Is Biden better than Trump? Is the Republican Party better than the Democrat Party? Randall’s time management was worse than Chase’s. He kept getting admonished because he kept speaking after his time was up. He should work on his time management before the next debate. I have debated in the past (I have been a candidate and was in Toastmaster’s) and it is not that hard to keep control of the time.
Robert F Kennedy Jr. and Dr. Cornell West should have participated in this debate. The two party establishment does not care that you decline to participate in a an alternative presidential candidates debate. They will not allow you to crash their party and participate in their presidential candidates debate. The American people are worse off because of your lack of participation.
I’m sure you’ll agree that a four person panel using a university debate rubric to evaluate the performance of each participant following a common set of objective criteria, is far less subjective than an open poll that has an ideological bias which filters out privacy-minded respondents and that fails to implement any meaningful protection against fraud.
One person’s subjective valuation of debate performance is no better a measure of how the participants did than even the most flawed audience polling.
No.
It’s quite clear: The candidates who did well in the debate, who made points the others failed to rebut, got the least votes in the poll; the candidates who did poorly, whose argument were immediately torn to shreds by all the others, got the most. And with the sole exception of Chase Oliver doing better than Jill Stein in both the debate and also the poll, that trend applies uniformly for every candidate’s relative ranking for both the February and the July debates.
See also my comment anticipating this result of the July poll based on that of the February poll at https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2024/07/green-party-of-alaska-nominates-jasmine-sherman-for-2024-presidential-run/
Do I have an explanation for this phenomenon? No. But I do have some suspicions. As I pointed out on the live-thread for the debate: “The audience voting requires a telephone number. There are no alternatives. Not only is that a privacy violation which will skew the ideological types that will vote regardless, but it doesn’t even prevent fraud as there is no system in place protecting against digital, generated or dynamic phone numbers.” See https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2024/07/free-and-equal-presidential-debate-live-stream-and-open-thread/
Two things come into play here: 1) the worse their candidate did in the debate, the more motivated their unscrupulous sycophants are to cast multiple vote in the poll, and 2) those who did worse in the debates are exactly the kind of far-left statists who don’t have any real values, which is why they were so bad at forming solid arguments which lost them the debate in the first place, and consequently also have no moral quandaries about cheating in the poll to win.
A third reason might be the kind of people who were willing to shell out the exorbitantly high price required to attend Freedom Fest, when Freedom Fest itself was dominated by far-left statist speakers, as I pointed out on June 7th: https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2024/06/terry-stein-oliver-rfk-jr-to-debate-at-freedomfest-congressman-massie-to-co-moderate-12-july-2024-in-las-vegas/
P.S.: There’s something I’ve been wondering about but haven’t gotten any clarity on, which you are in a uniquely good position to answer. Were those jackboots that pulled you out of your chair during Trump’s speech at the LNC and then proceeded to quite literally kick you out of the hall, Trump’s secret service goons or McArdle’s security arrangement for the convention? What about the ones who dragged Dan Reale away from the mic after he started swearing at McArdle?
I’m not entirely sure what you’re trying to say in your two comments here Nuña, but as written it doesn’t make any sense. Try again?
It *sounds* like you’re trying to tell us that because the candidate(s) you *personally* supported in February’s Free And Equal debate fared poorly in the post-debate poll, this must mean that the candidate who got the fewest votes in the post-debate poll following Friday’s debate actually won the July 12 debate. But of course that would be completely nonsensical.
Or, to try and quantify that conclusion somewhat:
In the February debate, Sherman did about twice as bad as de la Cruz and got slightly more than twice as many votes. Stein did only half as bad as de la Cruz, and consequently got slightly less than half as many votes.
So I guess that means Randall Terry did about seven times better than Stein and between eight and nine times better than Oliver, in this debate. That seems somewhat meager to me, but the poll has spoken.
Given the results of the previous (February) F&E debate’s poll*, there is no other way to construe this than a massive victory for Randall Terry; and, given their relative performance, somewhat of an insult towards Chase Oliver.
* The February post-debate poll also showed a strictly inverse correlation between debate performance and votes, with the exception of Stein somehow, for reasons that are beyond me, being ranked better than Oliver then too:
Jasmine Sherman 48.49%
Claudia de la Cruz 22.09%
Chase Oliver 16.47%
Jill Stein 10.73%
Lars Mapstead 2.21%