If an officers actions are in contradiction of the majority of their members wishes, they'll soon be a former officer.
And if the assertion is true that those who don't contribute put their members liviehoods in jeopardy, isn't "succumbing" the more prudent path? Isn't that putting the members first, at personal expense? How is that not a sacrifice rather than a "compromised" or "weak-kneed" position?
Supporting the incumbent and likely winning slate has little downside. If they win, you'll curry favor. If the opposition slate is successful, the last thing they'll do is be vindictive. They will bend over backwards to make new alliances with those who campaigned against them, or they will fail.
Pragmatism sometimes can be very blurry, especially when both sides have less than stellar candidates. I'm guessing many will split their votes come November.