some or the commie stuff
As I've said, most people do not have beliefs or principles in regards to voting and they don't even like to think about it. If forced they'll throw off something they've heard that sounds smart- "the deficit" is always a good one. But mostly it is how they feel and their tribal allegiances. Professionals can play them like a banjo.
So as far as The Green New Deal goes, a lot of them were somehow-probably easily- convinced that was some commie stuff from that crazy brown woman and would destroy our way of life. And I guess that a very centrist Dem was undoubtedly in cahoots if he was in the same party.
I have a problem with a few minor pieces of the GND and the timelines are aspirational- they aren't going to happen. But pushing hard into renewables is so obviously the right way to go- many more jobs, cheaper- so will pay for themselves- and will greatly reduce that old fashioned kind of people killing pollution even if you're an AGW deadender.
Re: Comments on the commie stuff.
Too bad they didn't bother to put the solar electric and wind costs per MWh on the graph. My residential solar system produces power at $50/ Mwh, and that's about twice as expensive as a commercial solar installation given their economies of scale. Wind-generated electricity is $40/Mwh.
The common fallacy that's always thrown out there is reliability but when you stop and think for a moment, you remember that there's no reason not to keep a gas-fueled plant on standby for when you need it. It happens all the time all around the country. Sure you burn a little natural gas now and then but you eliminate that 820 M tonne of coal and the better part of that 490 M tonnes from gas.
The point is, it's entirely feasible to get rid of the most of the carbon pollution and get cheaper electricity at the same time.