Andrew Yang qualifies for first DNC debate with 65k unique donors

https://www.axios.com/andrew-yang-2020-democratic-primary-debate-6b64b6c5-b256-4056-8385-3d108038cd25.html

by yasp • 7 years ago

153 208 7 years ago

KuiN• 7 years ago

You qualify for the debate by getting the right number of donors? Wow ...

normal_man3• 7 years ago

Unique donors across (I believe?) all 50 states. It's to allow presumably grassroots candidates to achieve access. You can also qualify the normal way of scoring above some small percentage in national polls.

rexaliquid3• 7 years ago

The DNC doesn't require donors from all 50 states, but it does require a healthy diversity of states. I think it is 200 unique donors from 20 different states.

MichaelApproved• 7 years ago

How would you propose a network select candidates for a debate?

Steltek• 7 years ago

I thought traditionally it was polling numbers. But maybe that was just the RNC clown car from 2016...

dragonwriter4• 7 years ago

Networks don't select candidates for the debates on their own, the parties at the main drivers; the DNC drove the single-tier big-stage setup for it's 2020 debates, including the ability to qualify by number of unique donors; the RNC drove the qualifications for, and two-tier “grown ups” vs. “kids table” format for it's 2016 debates.

longhuei• 7 years ago

It's to make sure "supporters" are actual supporters who put their money where their mouth is.

cphoover• 7 years ago

That supposes "supporters" have disposable income, and don't support a candidate in other ways like donating time, or canvassing.

jmull• 7 years ago

It seems reasonable to me, for an early debate, assuming the minimum qualifying donation is small (like $1 or $5).

For an early debate, I think one of the main goals would be to give exposure to "deserving" candidates who don't necessarily already have it. Polling isn't good for that since it will exclude anyone people haven't already heard of. But the question becomes what is "deserving" and how do you measure it?

It's not like counting donors is perfect, but what is? And it has some things going for it:

1. Talk is just talk. If you can get a decent number of people who don't personally know you to support you with at least a few bucks, you've got some kind of appeal.

2. There are already a lot of laws, reporting rules, etc. around campaign donations that you can piggyback off of. That is, the campaigns are already tracking this stuff very carefully and, if they cheat the numbers, are risking something a lot worse than being left out of a debate.

thanatropism6• 7 years ago

Quadratic voting. You can give as many "pushes" to a candidate as you like, but the first costs $1, the second $2, the third $9, the fourth $16... At the end of the game everyone shares in the spoils equally so people get some of their money back.

bigbadgoose2• 7 years ago

Is he a stalking horse for UBI, ahem Freedom Dividend™?

guipsp• 7 years ago

What?

bigbadgoose2• 7 years ago

Apparently, testing revealed that "Freedom Dividend" polled higher with conservatives than "Universal Basic Income". So, in a ham-fisted wide appeal play, he's rebranded UBI as "The Freedom Dividend"

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/the-freedom-dividend/

––

This brings us to our second point, which is a conjecture that such a move has a sniff of witting or unwitting use as a test candidate, not for serious contention of nomination, but as an indicator of conservative support for such a concept. ("stalking horse")

ed_balls2• 7 years ago

Prediction: UBI won't go anywhere, because it has a branding problem. If we rebrand it as a Negative Income Tax it may actually go somewhere.

chadmhorner• 7 years ago

That's what the "Freedom Dividend" branding is all about!

ed_balls2• 7 years ago

I don't think that's good enough. Dividend still have a connotation that you are getting a handout.

jerkstate2• 7 years ago

Dividend implies a share of the revenue. What happens when people start thinking about where the revenue comes from?

astine2• 7 years ago

Technically, a negative income tax is actually a different but similar policy proposal. It has the advantage that it requires a smaller increase in taxes overall and uses existing governmental infrastructure.

hencq• 7 years ago

Yeah, I'm a much bigger proponent of a negative income tax, mainly because it doesn't disincentivize work as much as just giving everyone the same amount of money.

gjjones125• 7 years ago

But doesn't the word "tax" already have an extremely strong negative connotation to much of the country? I think Universal Basic Income is already the most polished way of saying wealth redistribution.

js22• 7 years ago

Milton Friedman called it that 50 years ago. Nixon proposed it to Congress in 1971. I don’t think associating with Friedman and Nixon is going to help with the branding.

WillPostForFood• 7 years ago

Depends who you are trying to convince.

chillacy15• 7 years ago

Much like other libertarian leaning candidates, a lot of supporters learn right (like, very far right). https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/9/18256622/andrew-yang-2020-...

koolba3• 7 years ago

“Progressive Refund Adjustment”

bilbo0s• 7 years ago

In Wisconsin we have zero corporate taxes, so they tried to explain the Foxconn "tax incentives" to us as a "negative income tax" for corporations.

Just saying that there may be some branding problems with that in the critical states. (And by critical, I mean the states that aren't going to just vote liberal or conservative anyway. Basically just a handful of states in the upper midwest. Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, maybe Ohio and Iowa.)

lawnchair_larry6• 7 years ago

Also because it’s a bad idea. I like Yang, but I would not vote for UBI.

chillacy15• 7 years ago

Maybe mention what aspect you find bad (I mean there are definitely weaknesses and unknowns), and why the explanations on his policy site don't have you convinced: https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-ubi/

It goes over the common ones like how will we pay for it, is this too soon, will this cause inflation, will people not be incentivized to work, etc.

thanatropism6• 7 years ago

That's the term evil neoliberal Milton Friedman used.

clarkevans• 7 years ago

Andrew Yang is popular for his promotion of Universal Basic Income ("UBI"). I've had success framing UBI as monthly compensation from government for the portion of natural space which has been reallocated to private ownership. In that regard, UBI could be funded though a national land value tax and though copyright/patent fees, both being government granted monopolies, carved from what would otherwise be public space.

EDIT: One of the common critiques of UBI is that it's a "give away". Instead, I see UBI as a payment for natural rights (to walk, hunt, eat and sleep where ever one wishes) that are taken by society though its allocation and enforcement of private property. Hence, in my view, the concept of private property and UBI are intrinsically linked. Given this frame, what this natural right is worth is an important discussion to have -- should society provide basic shelter and sustenance in exchange? Free market perspective gives us an option, it could just be cash without any strings or requirements. But importantly, it's not a "hand out", it's compensation for a taking.

IfOnlyYouKnew2• 7 years ago

I think you’re being downvoted for the mental gymnastics you’re attempting to haphazardly tie UBI to your personal obsession with land taxation.

onlydeadheroes2• 7 years ago

This is the guy whose site showed 65k after you changed your local date/time to the debate date, correct?

minton2• 7 years ago

It seems his donation site is powered by https://secure.actblue.com so if that was true I think it’s an issue with ActBlue’s platform.

gridlockd• 7 years ago

It's actually reasonable. There's a little animation that show "live" updates to donation value.

If you were to implement this, would you have every active client update live on the actual amount of donations, or would you just calculate the trajectory from past donations?

Unless the user is going to keep the browser tab open for days on end without reloading, this is going to be a fair and efficient approximation of the actual value.

onlydeadheroes2• 7 years ago

I don't disagree with you, querying for every page served could easily get out hand.

Strictly speaking, I didn't even write the comment above. Someone else did, it got censored, and I found that disgusting, so I copy pasted and posted it. You can find the original at the bottom if you have showdead.

everdev6• 7 years ago

Another topic Yang brings up frequently besides the Freedom dividend is retraining.

Automation in retail, driving, etc. has the potential to make jobs obsolete at a rapid pace. Rather than trying to fight to save jobs that can be done by machines the idea is to retrain people in these industries to do things machines aren't good at.

The idea is to not slow down progress but also not abandon people who happen to have built a life in a dying field.

ousta• 7 years ago

that is in every program since dawn of 20th century: Here is https://www.axios.com/trump-workers-program-ivanka-automatio...

Alex39172• 7 years ago

He does frequently bring up retraining, but in the context that government-sponsored retraining programs have between a 0% and a 15% success rate. E.g. the graduation rate for former military employees who then go to college is 0%.

So retraining isn't a solution to jobs being lost by automation and even if we get significantly better at retraining it's still probably not a solution.

bazooka_penguin• 7 years ago

Are there any retraining programs that have more than a 50% success rate? Has retraining ever been a realistic option for job loss? Seems more likely the next generation would make up for the lost jobs on paper

mattkrause3• 7 years ago

Can you back that zero percent number up with any sort of data? This article https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/04/why-is... says that the number isn’t even officially tracked, though it’s probably low.

However, it also points out some places do manage to graduate a decent proportion of veterans, so it might be a matter of finding the right approach rather than an impossibility.

drharby• 7 years ago

I fear your military stat is inaccurate and taken out of context, making it meaningless for any inference on this matter.

Military population jas a selection bias for people with high thresholds of tolerance for difficult tasks amd by end of training usually have otjer confounding factors affecting their graduation, ie. Ptsd, lack of purpose, loss of fraternity, etc.

eghad2• 7 years ago

You're going to need to provide a source for your claims that 0% graduate. A handful of my classmates from Carnegie Mellon were veterans (some with trauma) and all graduated within the typical timeline. The NVEST report from 2017 on student veterans [0][1] show an approximate 54% graduation rate within 6 years (18% were still enrolled, 28% dropped out) greater than the general averages. While the washout rate for 2 year programs is particularly high, your idea that retraining isn't achievable is flawed.

[0]https://nvest.studentveterans.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03... [1]https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/04/why-is...

esahione• 7 years ago

Lol @ software engineers complaining about ageism and at the same time thinking retraining a 50yo truck driver is a reasonable solution

el_cujo• 7 years ago

I listened to him talk a little bit on Joe Rogan's podcast, and it seemed to him that the UBI/Freedom Dividend is his plan explicitly because stuff like retraining these fifty year old guys who have been truck drivers or coal miners their entire lives to become computer programmers or something is really unrealistic. I guess it would be more possible to retrain the younger people that populate retail, but really I think retail is viewed as just something people do to put themselves through college or during highschool rather than a life-long career like truck driving. That's not to say there aren't people in retail who aren't going to get screwed by automation, but that's sort of the appeal of UBI, it's something that applies to everyone versus having to try and justify to someone that you deserve help for your specific circumstances.

_red3• 7 years ago

retraining these fifty year old guys who have been truck drivers or coal miners

While thats true, I think the premise is wrong. Techno-types love to imagine that automation is just going to sweep through these industries.

The devil of these things is in the details. Yes, perhaps the tech can get to approximate 90% of what a human can do. However, the real problem are outside of tech. Like liability insurance. Who gets sued when one of Elon's driverless trucks plows into a school bus? Surely not the "trucking company"? So the software company will have to assume that...Now, imagine there are 50M driverless vehicles on the roads, what does that monthly policy look like? What insurance company will underwrite that? What happens if a zero-day is found? etc. etc.

chrisco2556• 7 years ago

The UBI of $1K a month is insane. This would be 320 million Americans receiving $1K a month per person? That's $320B a month...$3.8 Trillion a year. That's DOUBLE the current Federal government's annual expenditures. He argues, with hand-wavey logic, that this will solve our problems and we can tax tech companies and all of this...but no, there's not enough annual revenue at the big tech companies to cover this enormous welfare program.

beat18• 7 years ago

I don't read him as big on "retraining" at all. He's certainly critical of how it's usually expressed politically - "We'll just turn those 50 year old truck drivers into computer programmers!" It just doesn't work that way.

lawnchair_larry6• 7 years ago

Retraining is a ridiculous proposition to address this issue, which is what he says about the topic as well.

jniedrauer• 7 years ago

Just train all of the cashiers and truck drivers to become mechanical engineers. It's simple! /s

thanatropism6• 7 years ago

Retraining is literally the #learntocode meme.

9999px4• 7 years ago

I think "progress" is a culturally and personally subjective concept.

To me, a lot of the progress we're making is efficiency only for the sake of profit. We should be answering the deeper question of "what's the point of work?" Do businesses exist to make profit for a small group of people or do they exist as privately-owned community pillars providing services and wages to citizens?

Personally, I lean towards the latter. And that's as a business owner twice-over.

We should also be asking ourselves "why do we make the products we make?" Are we building and consuming to fulfill an urge created by advertising? If so, can we scale back advertising and thus consumption and thus waste?

Unionization and employee-ownership are other options for fairly distributing wealth based on effort. A shop that unionizes can vote to automate – or not – and thus control their own destiny. Granted we're not there yet legally; our laws skew heavily in the favor of business owners. So were a union shop to vote to _not_ automate, a shop that fired all of its employees and automated would more than likely succeed in the market.

And that brings me full-circle – is succeeding in the market and being profitable more important than keeping people employed in a democratically-controlled workplace?

pxue• 7 years ago

Here's my question about unions and worker controlled workplaces.. What happens when the entire shop becomes uncompetitive?

It's the same as when a country is happily going about their day and suddenly tanks show up at your door because someone else wants what you have.

that's just human nature, I don't see a way around it.

chrisco2556• 7 years ago

Businesses exist to make a profit. Do you care that a washing machine or dishwasher replaces the work of what used to be a labor intensive activity? Do you care that construction workers are using backhoes instead of shovels (which would employ more people)?

Unionization made sense in part due to the very labor intensive work of the early 20th century. Conditions were poor and pay was low and you had massive numbers of people doing related work together. It made sense. Nowadays unionizing is like herding cats across disparate, ephemeral organizations.

I don't think you can take a 20th century approach to 21st century problems.

Workplaces aren't democracies.

r00fus3• 7 years ago

Do businesses exist to make profit for a small group of people or do they exist as privately-owned community pillars providing services and wages to citizens?

If that's your take on businesses, would you support a requirement for corporate charters to keep public as stakeholders?

Ie, removing the oft-repeated opinion that corporations have a fiduciary duty to their stockholders to make the most money possible?

chillacy15• 7 years ago

Sounds a lot like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism

Yang talks about coming up with a more wholistic measurement than GDP to optimize on which is more in-line with how we value people culturally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2FnZPXjRyI&feature=youtu.be...

beat18• 7 years ago

I'm currently reading Yang's book The War on Normal People and it is kind of terrifying. I highly, highly recommend it in preparation for this presidential race, whether or not you're a Yang supporter. There is a great deal of food for thought. (full disclosure: I'm a Yang supporter and donated twenty bucks)

So, a few observations about him as a candidate. First, I think he's the only candidate really looking outside the box. It seems to me the political debate in this country is basically liberals saying the solution to our problems is more 1960s welfare and 1970s regulation, and conservatives saying the solution is less 1960s welfare and less 1970s regulation. We're stuck with a 50 year old model for the domestic responsibilities of our government.

Andrew Yang is one of us. He's from the startup community, and has seen up close how disruption works. He understands technology, and he understands numbers. And what he sees as a result of this understanding is grim - tens of millions of working-class and middle-class jobs slated for obsolescence in the next couple of decades, and no real alternatives in place for those about to lose their livelihoods. The social implications are terrifying. Don't like his UBI solution? Come up with something else, or commit to ignoring the problem until there are bread riots.

Another thing that strikes me is how he comes across. He reminds me of two important recent politicians - Barack Obama, and Bernie Sanders. Obama, because he's so clearly a nerd. It's such a rare pleasure to listen to a politician that I think is actually much smarter than me and not pretending otherwise. And Bernie, because Bernie's superpower isn't his policies - it's his integrity. You know deep down that Bernie isn't lying to you. I get that same vibe from Yang, and that's a very powerful thing these days.

Anyway, just some observations.

normal_man3• 7 years ago

The goal of government is to create the most stable, safe, and happy environment as possible for as much of the population as possible. What about the startup community, who obsessively chase endless growth, "innovation" and "disruption", makes you think they would be good at achieving that goal?

beat18• 7 years ago

He's not saying that the push to growth-by-disruption is a solution. He's saying it's a problem, and we have to deal with it quickly, because it moves quickly. He's not saying we should run the country like a Silicon Valley startup. He's also not saying innovation should be banned or punished (coughcoughWarrencough). He's saying that it's coming, and it's going to mess up a lot of people's lives, and if we don't do something big to deal with that, we're going to have a revolution on our hands.

sundbry• 7 years ago

That's in fact not the stated purpose of the government at all. It is not a utilitarian construct.

chillacy15• 7 years ago

Check out his podcast with Joe Rogan or Sam Harris, he definitely understands that government is not the same as business, but he also understands markets and incentives (and perverse incentives) a lot better than most politicians imo.

eli_gottlieb4• 7 years ago

I like Yang, but I think the current partisan culture-war covers up how good he actually is. If Bernie (admittedly, my preferred candidate) had published a book called "The War on Normal People", a lot of us Millenials would be camping out at bookstores to get it like it was the last "Harry Potter" book all over again.

beat18• 7 years ago

Reading Yang is an eye-opener, relative to Bernie's proposed solutions. Raising the minimum wage doesn't help if minimum wage jobs are being obliterated. Free college doesn't help someone who is 50 years old and isn't really up to starting their life over again. It's not that Bernie's ideas are bad (obviously, Yang adopted Medicare for All)... but they're incomplete. To my earlier criticism, they're just a particularly strong example of "1960s welfare, but more of it".

I don't know if UBI is the solution. But I sure as heck don't know what else might be. That's why I want Andrew Yang in the debates. I very much doubt he'll win the nomination, and I have doubts about his ability to survive the brutality of a major-candidate status, but I want Democrats (and America) talking about both his fears and his solutions, because we really, really need to talk about this stuff.

ryanwaggoner3• 7 years ago

You could also just disagree with him about the problem. As a developer and founder, I think that most of what people are worried about with regard to automation putting everyone out of work in a decade is overblown. It’s essentially the exact same thing that’s always been said when fearmongering about how innovation and growth is about to destroy everything: “this time it’s different!”

Maybe, but I’ll pass on implementing a huge, untested, disruptive “cure” for a problem that people have been saying is around the corner for 150 years.

Not that there’s any real option of doing that. We can’t pass boring things that have widespread support, but we’re going to somehow magically pass things like UBI or single payer or the green new deal that would reshape the entire American economy and culture in unpredictable ways? OK.

Climate change and automation and the health care crisis are great examples of how we politically cannot get ahead of big problems that require big solutions. It’s basically impossible politically. The best we seem to be able to do is react way too late.

Or maybe I’m just cynical. But I’d love examples of big things we solved in advance that required big political constituencies to be built and were costly to voters.

meowface2• 7 years ago

I think it's just a timescale calibration thing. It's probably not going to be a widespread problem in 10 years. Within 40 years, it almost definitely will be. Better to start preparing now, especially since it'll probably take a very long time to get anything like this passed.

chillacy15• 7 years ago

The pain is already here, it just isn't apparent on the costal cities. It manifests in a low labor participation rate among people (especially men) with high school educations in the midwest, increased drug usage and suicide rates, etc.

I think if he's wrong he won't poll well after the debates and we'll forget about it all, but if he's right, he'll do well in Iowa and the midwest, and we know from 2016 that you can't win the electoral college without those swing states.

intrasight3• 7 years ago

I have a different spin on UBI to address automation. I proposed that any human job done by an automaton must be backed by a license holding human. And humans can only own a single license. But a license is something that you are - not something that you own (no sell/transfer/inherit). So for example to "build" a truck driving automaton, you must also "hire" the license holding human.

mr_spothawk• 7 years ago

it's a clever mechanic, but recursively... what if you want to automate automaton creation? must you then develop a licensing body for automaton creators? and who will administrate this most important committee?

intrasight3• 7 years ago

it automaton licenses all the way down ;)

krapp5• 7 years ago

Since automation has rendered the "license holder's" value in the market to zero, companies would "hire" them and pay them nothing.

What you're describing is simply not the way capitalism or automation works, or can ever work. No company is going to pay twice for the same labor.

intrasight3• 7 years ago

Lots of companies pay for lots of thing they don't want to pay for - due to regulations passed by society.

i_am_nomad3• 7 years ago

Ha ha ha ha, no. He qualifies for the first debate because the DNC allows him to. If they didn’t want him there, they’d bend and rewrite the rules to prevent it. Witness Larry Lessig’s experience with this:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2015/1...

apearson• 7 years ago

Non-amp link: https://www.vox.com/2015/11/2/9659014/lawrence-lessig-quits-...

i_am_nomad3• 7 years ago

Thank you, I’m sorry about that.

ForHackernews2• 7 years ago

Lessig was never a serious candidate. I'm not sure what your point is: Obviously the Democratic party decides who they invite to a debate that they're hosting.

i_am_nomad3• 7 years ago

If the DNC sets a policy that candidates meeting certain objective criteria can debate, they should uphold that policy. Otherwise they should be transparent about how candidates are admitted.

colpabar• 7 years ago

Maybe they don't want to turn him into a martyr like they did with Bernie.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/2/16599036/d...

jessaustin3• 7 years ago

Martyrdom is easy to avoid. They could have just not rigged the game against Bernie, then he would have won all the caucus states, he would have won California, he would have won at the convention, and he would have beaten Trump handily.

pastor_elm3• 7 years ago

They are allowing 20 people on stage. At a certain point, you have to cut off the line.

beat18• 7 years ago

I'm fine with saying "top twenty candidates". And I like the idea of splitting it into two debates and randomly selecting who goes where, rather than the "kiddie table" nonsense the GOP did with their large field in 2015.

thanatropism6• 7 years ago

The Republican Party had daytime ("junior varsity", as 538 put it) and nighttime debates during their crowded primaries in 15/early 16.

YUMad• 7 years ago

Also, the donation counter on his page was fake - it was simply a time-based counter done in JS, and the code took the time from local PC, not the server - if you'd change time on your pc to future (couple days) and refresh the page, donation count would go up.

arcticfox2• 7 years ago

I've read that this is standard practice because they only get authorized counts from the DNC once every 24hrs. So it's just an estimate that is reconciled daily.

snowwrestler• 7 years ago

My recollection is that Lessig was pretty clear from the start that he was running just to raise the prominence of his position on campaign finance, not to actually become president. IIRC he said he would resign after passing one bill.

I can see why party leadership would choose not to participate in what was, from their perspective, a stunt--not a serious campaign for the White House.

weatherlight• 7 years ago

I don't understand why the above comment was downvoted.

millettjon• 7 years ago

The point is that they changed the rules out from under him.

pastor_elm3• 7 years ago

The neoliberal media is already trying to paint him as the white nationalist darling candidate[0]

It is getting ridiculous.

[0]https://www.vox.com/2019/3/11/18256198/andrew-yang-gang-pres...

feihcsim• 7 years ago

an asian white nationalist - now that is something to behold

krapp5• 7 years ago

That article doesn't seem to be trying to paint Andrew Yang as a white nationalist. It literally quotes him disavowing support from white supremacists and their beliefs.

It does say that his popularity on the internet extends to 4chan, where racists make racist memes about him, and it quotes a tweet[0] by him regarding a New York Times article[1] about death rates among white people, but I don't really see that as white supremacist.

[0]https://twitter.com/andrewyangvfa/status/1010207553324806150

[1]https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/white-minority-populat...

OrgNet• 7 years ago

The Superdelegates are OK with it, I guess... or are the Superdelegates (AKA supercitizens) still a thing since the 2016 fiasco?

Someone1234• 7 years ago

They still exist, but they now only get to vote on the second round if the first round fails.

The biggest problem with them from 2016 wasn't their actual vote, it was that many media outlets (including Google) listed Superdelegates non-binding preference as a delegate in the totals, making one candidate seem far ahead before many states had even voted.

Unclear if that issue is resolve, because it is up to the media. This article as a screenshot from 2016/discussion:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sanders-vs-clinton-delegat...

thanatropism6• 7 years ago

The Republican field had daytime and nighttime debates in 15. But that meant that the daytime people only debated with daytime people trying to get a spot on the nighttime. The debates were horribly crowded too.

The best situation would be something like n-fold cross-validation. With 20 candidates you have 1140 possible arrangements for three-way debates. You have what, 40 to 60 weeks to converge on a candidate? Enumerate those 1140 arrangements, pick M integers from a lottery with white balls and hold weekly debates, preferably all over the country.

For any given candidate, his probability of being on any single debate is 14,26% [0]. The probability that he's in at least one of 40 debates is 99,78%. If this happens, give this candidate an extra slot in the very last debate before primaries.

[0] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1%2F20+%2B+(19%2F20)*(...

anth_anm3• 7 years ago

Change the rules please.

or don't and I'm giving Matt Christman a dollar.

Simulacra• 7 years ago

I gave money to Yang for this because I think having an Asian American on the stage would be a good thing for the debate.

Andrew Yang qualifies for first DNC debate with 65k unique donors

Related Stories