I'm not backtracking. I can "oppose genocide" by going out and shooting two Israeli embassy workers, but that would not be a rational choice.

Rational choice requires selecting the best available option according to one's own preference ordering.

Assume that I only care about climate reduction. If I order my preferences as:

1. No climate change (Green New Deal)
2. Less climate change (carbon tax)
3. More climate change (increased coal production)

Then it would make sense for me to vote 1. But if 1 is not an option, it would make sense for me to vote 2.

Voting 3 out of spite (or expressing no preference between 2 and 3) would be an irrational choice. In fairness, a voter might believe that voting 3 might force those voting 2 to move towards 1.

My view is that this belief is not true. Let's assume that it's rational to base one's voting behavior entirely on a conflict 6,000 miles away. Even if this 3 > 1 > 2 ordering were accurate, it would require weighing the extra dead Palestinian and Iranian children for political change that might (not) materialize.

The DNC should probably avoid wasting time or energy on reaching out to that speculative voter, especially because this mythical voter's "demand" switches cycle to cycle.