Mediaboss Marketing

Have you lost friends over politics? If so, theres a show I want to introduce to you.

There are four things you should do, in conversation, to avoid arguments. You can do these things and become even more persuasive at the same time.

Would you like to know what those four things are?

Recently, I came across a podcast episode that I want to share with you. I want to share it because it matches the classical spirit of the Advocates for Self-Government. Our organization was founded by a salesman to help people get better at selling Liberty.

I came across this episode because its host, Jim Babka, is the editor-at-large here at The Advocates. His show is called Gracearchy with Jim Babka.

Gracearchy is a neologism about ending the blame and scapegoating that is typical in politics, and replacing it with genuine understanding. If you listen to a few episodes, youll quickly gather that the host is a voluntaryist libertarian.

Recently, Jim interviewed Duane Lester, Director of Issue Education for the Grassroots Leadership Academy. Together, they explored more gracious political conversation.

And you can learn these four powerful techniques by watching or listening to this episode of Gracearchy with Jim Babka. Once youve got these down, you can rinse and repeat for each conversation you have.

Duane also explained how to apply the three languages of politics without trying to use a language other than your own. This insight will allow you to still be yourself yet state your own views more clearly than ever.

Duanes training sessions draw crowds at conferences around the country. If you would like to have him come train your local group in these techniques, you can also find out how to do that by watching the show.

More Persuasion: Less Fighting

Youll find Duanes advice to be quite practical and instantly useful.

And Jim has been called an outside the box thinker. His new show reaches a niche audience. I encourage you to check it out on YouTube, and even do as I have Click the bell and subscribe to AHO Network, which hosts this show.

Mike SerticPresidentAdvocates for Self-Government

Originally posted here:
How to sell freedom without fighting | The Advocates for Self-Government - The Liberator Online

End the hatred and the violence!

I didnt intend to research Kentucky Senator Rand Pauls father Ron Paul. I initially was reading about the early life of Oath Keeper Stewart Rhodes (Im assuming we all know he shot himself in the eye), and was surprised to learn that Rhodes had worked for Congressman Ron Paul in his Texas, and Washington D.C. offices and had been a volunteer in Montana during Ron Pauls 2008 presidential campaign.

I didnt think it was explosive information until I read the February 1, 2022 DK diary by David Neiwert in which he interviewed Rhodes ex-wife Tasha Adams. The way Adams explained it, the Ron Paul presidential campaign of 2008 was the seminal event that caused Rhodes to start the Oath Keepers.

What Adams said was: I think what he [Rhodes] saw was the energy of the Ron Paul movementhe saw the money, he saw the youth, he saw the people willing to donate their hours and their time, andyou know, typical narcissists, thats what they do, they absorb energy from people, right?and so I think he saw all that energy, he saw all that and he wanted to find a way to take it for himself.

It was news to me that when Rhodes founded the Oath Keepers in 2009, he went after the veterans, military personnel, and police officers he and Adams had met during the campaign, who were drawn to Pauls libertarian views. In fact, Rhodes focused on recruiting and encouraging them to remain true to the oath they swore to defend the Constitution and to disobey orders they considered illegal. Rhodes badly wanted to be their leader, and recruited many of them, who had nowhere to go after Pauls campaign ended in 2012, and before Trump declared his intention to run for president in 2015.

When I looked up Ron Paul, I was flabbergasted. I knew that he had been a Libertarian Congressman who had run for president three times; twice against former President Obama. What I didnt realize was that the former Air Force flight surgeon and OBGYN, was the orchestratorof a well-organized grassroots movement that had attracted some people who would later join the Oath Keepers and others who were just like the MAGAs, without the moniker or the caps. Neither did I know that for decades Paul had published (They were written under his name although he said he neither wrote them nor read them) and profited from political newsletters that were chock-full of conspiratorial, racist, and anti-government ravings. Just like Trumps slurs and lies, Pauls newsletters slurred and lied about revered people, like the Rev. Martin Luther King, and others.

According to author James Kirchick, who exposed the newsletters, and did a broader investigation into Pauls history of associations with all manner of groups and individuals on the extreme right, Ron Paul was truly an Angry White Man, and that was the title of Kirchicks book about him, which was published on the day of the 2008 New Hampshire primary.

Before writing this diary, I knew nothing about the United States Libertarian Party, which defines itself as a party that promotes civil liberties, non-interventionism, laissez-faire capitalism, and limiting the size and scope of government. But, if the behavior of the right- wing Libertarians can be used as an example, they are all angry white people. During the Trump years, I had no idea that the MAGAs who participated in the Insurrection;refused to wear masks,get vaccinated, stop attending huge COVID spreading events, stop harassingparents in school board meetings and at schools, stop threatening and harassingelection workers, hospital doctors and nurses,politicians, POC, Muslims, Jews, and LGBTQ children and adults possibly considered themselves to be right-wing Libertarians. To me, they just were/are lawless, racist, violent, intellectually challenged, selfish, amoral, anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, homophobic, misogynistic, anti-American Republican gun-toting extremists, seditionists, and/or domestic terrorists. And, I still believe thats true. I also didnt know that Libertarianism means that you believe in Originalism regarding the Constitution, which is the position of Clarence Thomas and Ron Paul, such odd bedfellows.

As a Congressman, Ron Paul's nickname Dr. No reflects both his medical degree and his assertion that he would "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure was expressly authorized by the Constitution. This position frequently resulted in Paul casting the sole "no" vote against proposed legislation. And, it meant that Justice Clarence Thomas, for most of his SCOTUS career until recently, also voted alone, even when he agreed with other conservatives because he made up his Originalist positions.

When Ron Paul launched his third and final presidential campaign in 2012, according to Mother Jones, his extremist positions were met with jeers from the party establishment. To name a few of Pauls positions: He didnt believe in the IRS or the Federal Reserve. He wanted to abolish half of federal agencies, including the departments of Energy, Education, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Labor; Eviscerate Entitlements (He said Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were unconstitutional), Enable State Extremism (Allow states to set their own policies on abortion, gay marriage, prayer in school); Legalize Prostitution; Legalize Drugs (including cocaine and heroine); Keep Monopolies in Tact (Remove federal anti-trust legislation); Stop Policing the Environment; Get Rid of the Civil Rights Act; and End Birthright Citizenship, among other things. And, his foreign policy was American Isolationism.

And, the people who supported Paul, among others, were survivalists, white supremacists, anti-Zionists, anti-government extremists (who wanted no legal restraints), American Isolationists, Libertarians, conservatives, people in the military and law enforcement (they were some of his largest donors), young, disaffected Democrats and independents who loved his isolationist stance on foreign policy and libertarian approach to social issues, anti-war activists, and rich folks (who wanted no governmental restraints to restraintheir greed and hunger for power). I would imagine he also appealed to racists, homophobes, misogynists, and evangelicals. In effect, they were just like current day MAGAs and members of the Republican cult, although there were far fewer of them back then. (They must not believe in birth control or abortionbecause they seem to have experienced exponential growth.)

And, their behavior during Pauls campaign was similar to how Trumps MAGA supporters behave. Pauls boisterous supporters raised hell in caucus states. His cheering throngs were loud and clear at the presidential debates. And, even after Paul withdrew, the feeling was that his followers would continue to make nuisances of themselves at state conventions.

When Paul was asked what he wanted from a campaign, that he couldnt win, he said he wanted his followers to run for office, win, and continue to do that to expand the movement and its influence in government. At the time, main stream Republicans felt that Ron Paul and his followers would fade out of the picture. Four years later, the coalition of people Paul had gathered together had greatly expanded, and they elected Trump as president.

After reading all that I did, what I dont understand is why former Congressman Ron Paul never has never been publiclyblamedandpilloriedrighteously castigated for the inestimable damage his actions, newsletters, opinions, and followers have doneto our democracy, democratic institutions,and to human decency within our country. He also hasnt been publicly identified in MSM for being Stewart Rhodes role model. Nor has Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, his son the obstructionist, been tarnished for his fathers actions,opinions, and behavior, which is consistent with his own, although he has tried to rebrand himself for a larger audience. But, we should never forget how dangerous they both are.

As James Kirchick so eloquently wrote in 2018 when his book Angry White Man, was published: Long before Donald Trump emerged as the most prominent purveyor of a racist conspiracy theory concerning the countrys first black president, played political footsie with white supremacists, condemned globalism, sold himself to the masses as a guru of personal enrichment, attacked American allies as scroungers, and made overtures to authoritarian regimes like Russia, there was Ron Paul. The ideological similarities between the two men, and the ways in which they created support, are striking.

The rest is here:
Rand Paul's daddy Ron Paul, the Angry White Man, who spawned a generation of obstructionist haters - Daily Kos

'Growth, growth, and growth'. It is, not to put too fine a point on it, a terrible political slogan. Abstract, indistinct, and drawing attention to the glaring economic failure of the past 12 years of Conservative government.

Liz Truss' attempt this week to position her government as the standard bearers of economic growth, bravely standing up to the nefarious forces of the 'anti-growth coalition' is a classic 'enemies of the people' style attempt at populist division, lumping together "Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP, the militant unions, the vested interests dressed up as think-tanks, the talking heads, the Brexit deniers, Extinction Rebellion" with anyone else who disagrees with the government so as to brand them all as enemies of prosperity.

But as with so much of the new government's agenda it is guilty of over-reaching. As the FT's Jim Pickard noted, it is "ludicrous to argue that anyone who doesn't support your particular economic plan must somehow be anti-growth - if you don't use *my* cake recipe you must be anti-cake".

Of all the anti-growth agitators listed by Truss only Extinction Rebellion could reasonably described as being opposed to growth, and even they are often simply in favour of a different, better kind of growth. Moreover, as I've argued many times before, if the economy is not growing is it not more likely to be the fault of those in actual power than the naughty scamps with placards?

As for the rest of the 'anti-growth coalition', Truss' focus on growth allows the opposition to fight on a territory it would happily choose and offers a daily reminder that the most powerful members of the anti-growth coalition are to be found on the government's own benches. The biggest drag on growth currently is to be found in the form of flatlining productivity, crumbling infrastructure, lengthening NHS waiting lists, soaring mortgage repayments, inefficient homes, nimby MPs, a hard Brexit deal that is set to knock four per cent of GDP, and a Prime Minister who genuinely abhors the sight of solar farms on under-productive agricultural land. Responsibility for all these barriers to growth and many more can be reasonably laid at the door of the Conservative government.

However, the biggest problem with Liz Truss' growth plan is to be found not in its ham-fisted political positioning, but in the fundamental inconsistency between the government's ideological impulses and its stated goals. The plan won't work. And it won't work because it completely misunderstands how modern business and modern economies succeed.

Nowhere is this incoherence better illustrated than in the government's confused approach to the green economy.

One of the few industrial success stories of the past decade has been provided by the offshore wind sector where a combination of direct funding, competitive subsidy auctions, and stable regulatory frameworks has served to drive regional investment, create jobs, and slash costs and emissions. Similarly, just before Liz Truss' speech this week, the UK auto industry confirmed it had sold its millionth plug-in vehicle, again underlining how it is electric vehicles that have provided the only bright spot for the sector over the past few years.

Everywhere you look in the green economy it is the same story. Study after study demonstrates how a national energy efficiency upgrade programme and zero carbon home building blitz delivers a better return on investment than any other infrastructure programme. Onshore renewables projects provide the cheapest and quickest form of new power capacity. Hydrogen, CCS, battery, smart grid, and nuclear projects are all in the pipeline or ready to go, providing a route for long term industrial competitiveness, energy security, and job creation. Public transport, mobile, and broadband connectivity boast enormous potential to unlock rural and regional productivity. Regenerative agriculture and negative emissions projects provide a means of bolstering climate resilience and food security.

These projects and thousands more like them would not only drive economic growth, but they would drive the right sort of economic growth. Growth that would be sustainable in every sense of the word, unlocking huge co-benefits through improved health, enhanced energy security, greater energy efficiency (or should we call it energy productivity?), better climate resilience, and increased competitiveness and export potential.

The Truss administration insists it remains supportive of this agenda. But its initial focus on taking office has been on pursuing a fracking revolution that will never happen and ordering yet another review of net zero, environmental rules, and farming subsidies that will burn through at least one per cent of the available time to meet the UK's climate targets and potentially result in the sacrificing of crucial policies on the altar of small state ideological purity. A government that has promised to prioritise growth is deferring and diluting decisions that could help drive rapid growth with near immediate effect.

Meanwhile, at both the practical and the ideological level Truss' growth plan is as likely to hamper growth as it is to stimulate it.

Kwasi Kwarteng's fiscal irresponsibility fuels market instability and pushes up interest rates, driving up the cost of the capital investments that are essential for both driving growth and delivering on the UK's net zero goals. At the same time, the ideological disconnect between what the bleak economic and security situation requires and the Prime Minister's impulses further undermines growth prospects. To take just one example, the only reason the UK is refusing to emulate its neighbours and call on the public to save energy in response to the very real risk of blackouts this winter is found in Truss' insistence that she is "not going to tell you what to do".

It is worth underpacking the ideology behind Number 10's reported decision to block plans for a modestly funded 15m public information campaign to encourage people to save energy this winter. The Prime Minister has decided that households should be completely free to use as much energy as they choose even if it means we all suffer blackouts. It is 'there is no such thing as society' as policy choice. The only thing that will be allowed to encourage people to use less energy will be the price signal, except that price signal has been drastically diluted by a government intervention that will cost the taxpayer up to 150bn. The whole sorry mess is as ideologically incoherent as it is economically and politically nonsensical.

It is also important to stress how all of the UK's allies and competitors, as well as the vast majority of the business community, now understand that government has a central role to play in driving sustainable economic growth. The EU and US response to the global energy crunch has been to visibly double down on the net zero transition and rapidly adopt policies and public spending that will mobilise multi-billion dollar investments in low carbon infrastructure. China continues to quietly accelerate its renewables and EV revolution. Even Singapore is not the libertarian fever dream it is painted out to be.

Meanwhile, everyone from the CBI to the IMF to the boss of Shell implores the government to fast track the net zero policies, effective regulations, and windfall taxes that can simultaneously drive growth, enhance energy security, and slash emissions.

Earlier this week one of the Institute of Economic Affairs' apparatchiks, Kristian Niemietz published a revelatory twitter thread in which he argued that the "downfall of Trussism and Kwartengism" was the result of the leftward drift of elite opinion. "In the past, you might have expected those people to be quite sympathetic to a Truss-Kwarteng agenda," he argued. "Truss and Kwarteng are broadly economically liberal, but there's nothing Ukippy-Gammony about them. They might describe themselves in terms that FT/Economist/Times readers like. The trouble is that those people only have skin-deep convictions. They're obsessed with 'respectability'. They'll always adopt the opinions that are considered 'sensible' and 'nuanced'. There was a time when economic liberalism could have ticked those boxes. That time is over Economic liberalism has lost all Upper Normie support."

Leaving aside for a second that economic liberalism's apparent casting out by the elite has been so successful that its leading acolytes are currently Prime Minister and Chancellor and its party of choice has been in government for 12 years, there is an alternative explanation for the political and economic elites' apparent disengagement from economic liberalism which Niemietz and his Tufton Street allies refuse to consider: it doesn't work anymore, if it ever did.

Elite opinion is shifting, not because it is shallow and obsessed with the zeitgeist, but because reality has shifted. The climate crisis is real, as is the remarkable competitiveness of clean technologies, and the threat to democracy from populism and authoritarianism. Market forces can help, but they can only do so much in response to these challenges. The combination of polluting externalities and the risk of free riders in the industrial transition means governments are required to catalyse investment in public goods, set effective market rules, and police them. True economic liberals used to understand this, until libertarianism made too many of them forget it. The problem with libertarianism is you eventually run out of biosphere to despoil.

This does not mean only left-wing governments can now deliver economic growth and effective climate action. Far from it. There are plenty of centre-right, market-led policies that can help drive green growth and accelerate the net zero transition. But raw libertarianism of the kind favoured by many of Truss' allies and advisors is incompatible with modern sustainable economic growth. You can't fund tax cuts on the never-never, you can't deregulate regulations that have already been removed, you can't cut state apparatus that is already on its knees, you can't decarbonise while digging up ever more oil and gas. It is a recipe for instability and suffering. It will fail on its own terms.

The IMF, the International Energy Agency, the UN, the world's top financial institutions, pretty much every leading corporate on the planet, these organisations are not advocating for a green growth path enabled by a proactive government because they have become a 'woke' arm of Greenpeace, but because it is what proven economic and physical reality dictates as the most sensible course of action. Elite opinion used to support colonialism, workhouses, and a whole lot more besides. Times change. The fast-dawning reality is that libertarianism and its shrink the state impulses are fundamentally ill suited to the needs of the 21st century, whatever social media edge lords and demagogic Republicans say to the contrary. Truss' preferred approach to any and all challenges is just not compatible with an era of climatic instability, rapid industrial transformation, and great power geopolitics

The government is right to go for growth, growth, and growth. The problem is that like the rest of its political operation, its preferred growth model looks doomed to failure.

A version of this article first appeared as part of BusinessGreen's Overnight Briefing email, which is available to all BusinessGreen Members.

See the rest here:
Liz Truss, libertarianism, and the real anti-growth coalition - http://www.businessgreen.com

DES MOINES, IOWA (October 7, 2022) Rob Sand for Iowa announced the endorsement of 31 Republican, Libertarian, and self-described conservative leaders from across the state today. The list includes current and former elected officials and candidates, Republican Party of Iowa staffers, and private sector leaders.

Rob has put Independents, Republicans, and Democrats in senior leadership in his office, and is willing to defend the other party or criticize his own even outside of his official duties, said Mike Mahaffey, former Chairman of the Republican Party of Iowa. Iowans need an independent, assertive State Auditor. I have known Rob since his days as an Assistant Attorney General. Rob is a good public servant who strives to serve all Iowans regardless of who they are or which party they belong to. He reminds me of former State Auditor Dick Johnson, a Republican who had the respect and admiration of people across the political spectrum.

Rob Sand understands why people are fed up with politics and strives to do things differently, said State Representative Dave Maxwell (R-Gibson). He serves the public interest, not partisan interests and works hard to protect the taxpayer. Common-sense Iowa voters can be confident in the work Rob Sand is doing as Auditor.

You can trust divisiveness and politics-as-usual is out the window when you see Republican, Libertarian, and conservative leaders all supporting a Democrat, said Sand. Our anti-partisan approach identified more than $25 million in misspent funds, created a government efficiency program so good the State Auditor of Mississippi copied it, and held insiders of both parties accountable. Ill continue that work in my second term if awarded one by voters.

List of endorsements*

*Organizations are for identification purposes only and do not constitute the endorsement of that organization of Rob Sand for Iowa

CURRENT AND FORMER ELECTED OFFICIALS

Aaron Alons, former Sheldon City Council Member, OBrien County

Wayne Barahona, former Sheldon City Council Member, OBrien County

Michael Bawden, former Mayor of Riverdale, Scott County

John Ellingson, former Waukon City Council Member, Allamakee County

Larry Keller, Clarke County Supervisor

Skip Lowe, former Tama Council Member, Poweshiek County

Tina Meth Farrington, Calhoun County Attorney

State Representative Dave Maxwell, Poweshiek County

John Mickelson, Former West Des Moines City Council Member, Polk County

Jared Rosien, Mayor of Washington, Washington County

J Scott Raecker, Former State Representative, Polk County

Clint Sargent, Former Mayor of Missouri Valley, Harrison County

Walt Tomenga, Former State Representative, Greene County

Sheriff Jeff Vandewater, Adair County

CANDIDATES

Marco Battaglia, Libertarian Party of Iowa Candidate for Lieutenant Governor, Polk County

Joseph Howe, Former Chairman of Libertarian Party of Iowa, Polk County

Jake Porter, 2018 Libertarian Party of Iowa Candidate for Governor, Pottawattamie County

Rick Stewart, Libertarian Party of Iowa Candidate for Governor, Linn County

REPUBLICAN PARTY, BUSINESS & COMMUNITY LEADERS

Mike Mahaffey, former Chairman of Republican Party of Iowa, Poweshiek County

Steve Noah, Former Executive Director of Republican County of Iowa, Polk County

Georgia and Mark Brown, Eagle Tool Company Owners, Dubuque County

Brian Downing, High School Principal, Dickinson County

Bob Downer, Former Republican Party National Convention Delegate, Johnson County

Mark Hanawalt, Former Chair of Iowa Association of Business and Industry, Bremer County

Bob Haney, Agribusiness leader, Warren County

Aaron Juergens, Iowa Pork Producers Board Member, Carroll County

Capt Terry LeMaster (ret.), Council Bluffs Police Dept, Pottawattamie County

Drew Skogman, Linn County

Dave Zrostlik, Former Chair of Iowa Association of Business and Industry, Hancock County

Tim Grover, State Director Restore Liberty Iowa, Jackson County

Mike Sylvester, Director of Grassroots Outreach, Iowa Pork Producers, Polk County

See the original post here:
Iowa Republican, Libertarian, and Conservative Leaders Endorse Rob Sand for Auditor - River Cities Reader

The major party candidates running for Georgias top elected positions have become household names, but when voters enter their polling places next month, they will encounter some names that have not been blaring from their TV speakers or plastered across their social media feeds.

The Libertarian Party of Georgia is fielding candidates for senator, governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general, commissioner of agriculture and commissioner of labor.

You probably wont need to memorize any of their names they are all polling below 10%. But the candidates could mix up the race by forcing a runoff, and they are hoping their presence will shift the political conversation in Georgia toward what they see as a focus on personal freedom and limited government.

The most important thing about the Libertarian Party platform is lower taxes, less government intervention, not necessarily in that order, said Ted Metz, who is running for secretary of state against Republican incumbent Brad Raffensperger and Democratic challenger state Rep. Bee Nguyen.

Like any party, Libertarians vary in their beliefs. But generally, they call for slashing taxes and eliminating government regulations ranging from drug and gun restrictions to minimum wage requirements and other labor standards.

If we were actually ever elected to office, we would follow through on our promise to lessen the footprint of government, said Metz, who ran for governor against now-Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, and Democrat Stacey Abrams in 2018. Of course, the GOP talks about lowering taxes and reducing the size of government, but you know, what? Government keeps growing, and the tax burden keeps growing. So essentially, were saying that the other parties are not not truthful in their claim to want to lower taxes, reduce the size of the government.

Shane Hazel, who is running for governor, said more people seem to be open to the partys message of limited government, especially after the 2020 pandemic lockdowns and the ensuing economic strife.

Democrats and Republicans, they lock people down, he said. Brian Kemp here in the state of Georgia locked it down. Republicans said nothing. Brian Kemp called us non-essential, allowed bureaucracies to invade our businesses. They bragged about record tax revenue during that same time, and during that time, millions of people lost their livelihood and lost family members.

Kemps 2020 executive ordersdeclaring a public health state of emergencyand ordering residents to shelter in place referenced Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and state public health department findings on the then little understood disease. Georgia was among the earliest states to resume normal activity, a fact Kemp often cites on the campaign trail. The state department of health has confirmed more than 38,000 COVID-19 deaths in Georgia.

Still, some Georgians remain steamed over the fact that the government had the power to institute the restrictions in the first place, Hazel said.

Personal freedom, in times of remarkable strife and emergency, is the path, and the powers were never delegated to the government to destroy your rights because of a quote-unquote emergency they get to declare, Hazel said.

Libertarians usually garner only a fraction of the overall ballots cast, but with tightening margins in Georgia, they may continue to force runoffs.

An Atlanta Journal-Constitutionpollconducted last month by the University of Georgia School of Public and International Affairs gives Hazel .5% of the vote, while Kemp leads with 50.2% and Abrams trails with 42.2%. All of Hazels support in the survey comes from self-described Republicans.

In 2018, Metz fell just shy of 1% of the vote in his campaign for governor.

Libertarian gubernatorial candidates have fared relatively better in past elections. Garrett Hayes won 3.8% of the vote in 2006 against Republican Sonny Perdue and Democrat Mark Taylor, and John Monds won 4% in 2010 against Republican Nathan Deal and Democrat Roy Barnes. Between 1990 and 2002, the Libertarian candidate picked up about 2.5% of the vote.

The decline in vote share may simply be a result of the millions of dollars the major parties have spent on advertising, said University of Georgia political science professor Charles Bullock.

Four years ago, the down-ticket Libertarians outperformed Metz amid a similar record-setting spending spree for the governors mansion, Bullock said.

The voter who simply doesnt know that much about the Democrat and Republican, doesnt have strong feelings and therefore wants to go with a libertarian. Had the libertarian for governor done as well as the average for libertarians that year, it would have been a runoff, Bullock said.

With Kemp hovering just above the all-important 50% mark, a December runoff is a possibility this year. Hazel said its highly unlikely that he would endorse either Kemp or Abrams, but added that he would invite them both to make their case on his podcast, Radical with Shane Hazel.

A runoff seems more likely in the race for the U.S. Senate, with Libertarian Chase Oliver earning 3.2% of the vote in the AJC poll. Democratic incumbent Sen. Raphael Warnock has 44.2%, trailing Republican challenger Herschel Walker with 45.8%, but other recent polls give Warnock a slight edge. If those results hold, Warnock and Walker would be forced into a December runoff.

Walker, a former UGA football star, is beloved by many but entered the race with significant baggage, including a lack of political experience and accusations of domestic violence.

I think in that situation, what were seeing is that while some Republican voters have qualms about voting for Herschel Walker, theyre not going to vote for Raphael Warnock, and so they can safely park their vote there with a libertarian, Bullock said. They dont have to make a hard choice between a Republican about whom they have serious concerns and a Democrat whose policies they reject.

The UGA pollsters found that Oliver had the support of 5.2% of self-described Republicans, 5.4% of independents and .9% of Democrats.

Down the ballot, Libertarians are performing slightly better, which could presage runoffs in those races as well. Lieutenant governor candidate Ryan Graham has 7.6% of the vote against Republican state Sen. Burt Jones and Democratic candidate Charlie Bailey, who have 43.4% and 33.1% respectively.

Metz scored 6.3% of the vote against Raffenspergers 49.9% and Nguyens 30.8%.

And in the race for attorney general, incumbent Republican Chris Carr leads with 44.5% of the vote to state Democratic Sen. Jen Jordans 34.6% and Libertarian Martin Cowens 6.6%.

Theyre getting a share of the Republican vote, but theyre also getting shares of the Democratic vote and doing especially well among independents, Bullock said. Well, that kind of makes sense. An independent says I dont like Democrats or Republicans anyway, and wow, heres an option.

But those numbers are likely to shrink as Election Day nears, Bullock said.

Part of whats happening is that voters who have not made a commitment can put off making commitments with either major party, yeah, right now Im with the libertarian, but what we see happening is if push comes to shove, its Election Day, and voting for a libertarian means youre not going to vote for somebody whos going to be ultimately a winner. So then, people who have picked out a libertarian or independent earlier on in the process, most of them gravitate towards one of the two major parties.

Libertarian candidates and voters are familiar with the polls, but theyre not throwing in the towel.

For Metz, part of the objective is fighting against the duopoly the two parties currently enjoy.

George Washington, in his farewell address, actually warned us that political parties will be the ruin of our republic, and thats exactly what has happened, he said.

Win or lose, the ultimate goal is to get their ideas into the mainstream, Metz said.

Our main objective is to change the dialogue, or at least to steer the dialogue to the issues that are important, impactful and are authorized functions of the government in both the state and the federal constitution, he said.

Third-party candidates can play a role in shaping the political narrative, Bullock said, giving the example of the 1992 presidential election.

With Ross Perot, his issue was we need to balance the budget, we need to balance the budget, and in time, that then became a significant message also from Democrats and Republicans.

But the message the candidates are hoping to convey also matters, he added.

It can affect the discussion, if the third-party candidate gets enough votes to get their attention. It doesnt always work that way. An example would be back in 1948, Strom Thurmond runs on a segregationist ticket. That didnt then force Republicans and Democrats to become segregationists.

This story comes to GPB through a reporting partnership with Georgia Recorder.

Read more here:
Libertarians hope to make difference in tight election year - GPB News