Not saying this is the case, just maybe challenging your premise as an absolute.

Let’s say someone is genociding, and the election opponent says “I want to also genocide, but harder and smarter.” Your moral obligation is stronger against the incumbent?

Is it because the incumbent is already complicit and the other guy might not be as bad? I don’t understand the moral logic of the possible absolutism here.

Shouldn’t the imperative be to reduce suffering? How does getting the lesser evil out of office help the situation?