There are, by the time this column publishes, 22 presidential hopefuls for the 2020 election. One stands taller than the rest: Andrew Yang.

Haven't heard of Yang? That's not surprising. But the New York entrepreneur seems to have a strong astroturf strategy ready to change that.

Astroturf advocacy is when an organization (or campaign in this case) has individuals advocate on its behalf to make it appear as though the support originates from the grass roots. And it whipped into action when we asked USA TODAY readers on April 14, "Which 2020 candidate is standing out to you and why?"

We weren't surprised by the fact there was some organized effort to get on our radar, but we weren't expecting more than 80% of the responses to our unscientific question to be centered around three candidates: Andrew Yang (38%), Marianne Williamson (27%) and Bernie Sanders (16%).

After a few varied responses, hundreds of emails supporting Yang came flooding in. In the real world, there's hardly been a groundswell for Yang; he's polling in low single digits nationally.

Read more commentary:

An ex-felon gets to vote again. Before he could, here's how he made his voice heard.

Toxic masculinity is aggravating tensions, so I spoke to Trixie Mattel about it

Closeted LGBTQ youth should know the landscape before coming out

The leading prospects for the Democratic nomination, according to the Real Clear Politics polling average, include former Vice President Joe Biden, who hasn't even officially announced his candidacy but is expected to do so this week; Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., for whom we also received hundreds of emails; and former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke, who got only one email of support after a week.

Our reader call was posted on social media six times by a group supporting Yang explicitly, and those posts were the most engaged with. In second place for social media postings with high engagement came from author and activist (known as Oprah Winfrey's spiritual adviser) Marianne Williamson, with two posts but a fervent base. Third place went to Sanders, with the most posts (about 120 by my last count) but also the lowest engagement overall.

Astroturf efforts are important to recognize, not because they are new or inherently bad, but because they can distort perceptions and create real momentum to candidates.

Even the news media are not immune. A lot can be said and learned from the 2016 presidential race and its aftermath, but one thing that I can’t still shake off is the level of amazement among news outlets about the outcome and their Herculean efforts to highlight stories from "Trump voters."

Not a bad strategy for newcomers

When I saw a barrage of messages supporting Yang, my first thought was, "Huh, that's cool," immediately followed by, "Why are they all mentioning his policies?" There are common threads behind astroturfing. I should know; I briefly worked in a national grassroots organization trying to drum up support for specific policies. Messaging is king and consistency is key.

It's not a bad strategy for newcomers like Yang or Williamson. In order to be taken seriously at the national level, you have to vamp support and have a coordinated effort that helps your base evangelize your main talking points.

Related:Yang, Williamson, Sanders are the 2020 candidates standing out to our readers

As apathetic as I am to these efforts from politicians, I learned that Yang is more than the guy on Twitter who's against circumcision — yes, that's his position. He also supports a monthly $1,000 basic universal income for Americans older than 18 and an economic model that maximizes human welfare.

Astroturfing serves a good purpose for small and engaged groups that want to make a difference. The issue arises when that voice overshadows and fails to recognize the sentiment of the majority. And in the end, the majority will win. It's important not only to recognize the voices being raised but also to verify where they're coming from.

Questioning candidates, their supporters

The call to our readers went out the same day that the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg, announced his campaign (just a coincidence), so I expected a fair amount of support for him. And while we did get emails in support of Buttigieg, who's polling at 6.8% nationally, they paled in comparison with those of Sanders, who also has a very vocal online following.

Asking basic questions like who is saying this, where is this coming from, and does this message seem genuine can help everyone get a better sense of intent. We're all subject to our surroundings, and as a 2008 study by the American Political Science Association explained, "Social pressure (is) an inducement to political participation." But wanting to expand your horizon beyond your circle of friends and look into new prospects should be met with genuine messages, not insincere marketing.

Tell USA TODAY:What was an overlooked sign in a toxic relationship you can point to now?

I'm not saying all those who participate in astroturfing efforts are not genuine, but there's something to be said about the person who fills out a template email versus the person who takes time out of their day to write original thoughts in support of a candidate.

The 2020 presidential race is just around the corner, and we would all be wise to be skeptical of every message and every candidate. The more scrutiny we place on supporters and candidates alike, the more confidence voters gain in the choice they're making.

Josh Rivera is the reader engagement and Opinion NOW editor at USA TODAY. You can email him at jrivera@usatoday.com or follow him on Twitter: @Josh1Rivera.