Sure, Kamala could have made a statement to not support genocide. Maybe she would even have won if she had done so.

That's it. It's all that matters. There was one path to winning the election and it was to get the candidate to change their policy in the most important issue of the election. There was no other path to victory for the Dems.

If that was all that mattered, people would have voted for less genocide, rather than refusing to vote so they could say they didn't vote for genocide, when in fact they said they were fine with whatever the rest of the voting public went with, which was inevitably some degree of genocide. Certainly, voting for Trump in protest wasn't a vote against genocide.

I apologize for interpretating the word "you" to mean the word "you". If you mean to speak of "they", you can use language like "voters", or the "electorate", or the "unwashed masses", whatever you prefer. But when you use the word "you" in response to something I say, there is no other way for me to interpret that other than by assuming you are directing the statement at me.

I'm sorry that your grasp of the English language is lacking. In that case, you, which is always syntactically plural, was used to refer to a singular individual.