Yeah what you're espousing is the autistic common misreading of utilitarianism that ends up justifying all kinds of evil because it reduces the existential experience to that of a bean counting game of zeroes and ones. It is technically a form of a moral philosophy, just a very shytty one that falls apart with cursory examination. It ends up pulling you down a path of further and further depravity and immoral ends because the justifications are ever-present and self-perpetuating. "It's a moral imperative to support a candidate pushing for the extermination of an entire people because the alternative is that extermination taking place at a quicker pace." is not a sound moral argument. It also confused the frame of the moral argument. You should be pro or anti a position, not an actor. Genocide is the position, the Democratic and Republican nominees are the actors. If both actors are holding the immoral position, the correct moral action is to not support either candidate. Our immoral system presents this false choice and then levies the weight of the immorality on the voter instead of the candidates running the system so the voter feels disempowered from criticizing the structure of the system or the people running it. It's the same game massively polluting multinational corporations run when they push ad campaigns telling individuals to recycle or else the planet will be destroyed.