"A practical man can always make what he wants to do look like a noble sacrifice of personal inclinations to the welfare of the community. I've decided that I've got to be practical myself, and that's one of the rules. How about breakfast?" The Pirates of Ersatz, Murray Leinster

From your question I noticed a few things. Nominally, I completely agree with @mxyzplk's answer, so this should be in the way of an addendum.

It sucks to be the leader

In a RPG, it just completely sucks to be the leader. Most players when confronted with a plan, remember about fifteen percent of it for the first fifteen minutes. But they'll certainly remember when you deviate. Leaders get no additional responsibility and no perquisites, but they get all the blame.

In the military this is mitigated with the clear distinction between commissioned and non-commissioned officers. Not least because the isolation provides both support structures and necessary emotional distance (to a degree, of course). Being "elected" leader, especially with the pack dynamics of typical werewolf games is an extremely dubious honour that I'd flatly reject.

The fact that while you may be leader in character but not dominant over the player group makes things even stickier. You need to assert authority within the realm of the narrative without actually having that authority in reality. Again, something that will cause friction and resentment any way you cut it.

Depressing environments bleed emotions into play

The world of darkness does what it says on the tin. Having played in a horror game myself recently, the iconic themes of the world of darkness do not make for "happy" or, for that matter, validating game experiences in the main. (And, if they do, it's a violation of genre.) When you are faced with the stresses of being "leader" which are compounded by the stressors of the philosophies baked into the setting, no wonder you're having a rough time.

Some solutions:

On leadership:

Fundamentally, a gaming group is a relationship. Bad relationships that do not provide validation are a drain on mental and emotional resources. When they don't work, cut them off or change them. In your case, I'd play a game that's a bit lighter in tone and focus: a nice traditional dungeon crawl or similar heroic fantasy.

I'd also reject the leader role for all the reasons I outlined above. Or, if they force it upon you, demand the perquisites and authority that is concomitant with it: they can't have it both ways.

On the group:

I've found that group character creation creates a far more cohesive group. By having entangled backstories, the group can draw upon a deeper understanding of each others' characters, creating the basis for empathy and respect within the characters, instead of the necessary simulacrum imposed by players.

By articulating desired tropes, a "palette" (as Microscope) calls it, before the game begins, you'll be able to shape the narrative of the group in directions that you want to play. This allows you to avoid the nominally depressive tropes that come default with the setting (not limited to world of darkness) and describe a source for future characters to connect with the current group. Replacement characters, if they tie into the shared narrative, will continue to maintain the tropes and social trust.

Be practical:

As players, we shape our narratives to an amazing degree. Emulate Bron Hoddan in the Pirates of Ersatz. While playing, you will be aware of the desired practical outcome that will provide validation and satisfy your personal goals. With that outcome in mind, you then frame it in terms that suit both your character's narrative and the expected narratives of the other players such that they will act to reinforce your framing and thereby your outcome. If you fight their narrative control by "being a loner," it is difficult to achieve your own goals. If you help them work as a team and appear to sacrifice nobly on their behalf while executing your own goals... the entire process is smoother and more effective.

Note that I am not saying to lie. Instead, consider the causal constructions of your actions, the explanations for those actions to be an aspect of the role * separate* from the actions themselves. By manipulating the framing as well as the actions, you can provide the necessary hooks for the other players to support your version of reality, rather than rejecting it and, by extension, you.

Postscript

Looking at your comments to other questions, you should absolutely give this group two last tries. In the first trial (of one or two games), try a heroic romp where you can be "Big Damn Heroes." Require the players who need the spotlight be leader. In the second trial (again of one or two games), try a game where players can intrigue against each other (I'd recommend Ars Magica, but then again I recommend it for most things. Most games support PvP intrigue quite ably.) If neither game provides the validation you need and the spotlight the other players need, move on. Before you do anything, take a month break, sit down, relax, and try to game with some strangers. I'm pretty sure that if you go looking for games in the chat section of this site... someone will oblige. For more on the framing problem, I'd quite recommend Rule 34 by Stross, as it describes it in a delicious narrative context.

Geniuses are Hard

It's easy to play a person stronger or faster than you, since we have an objective sense of how to scale up stats. A really agile character is just that- like you, just more agile. But mental stats are a lot trickier. We know what it's like to encounter a smarter/wiser/more charismatic person, but that doesn't tell you how to think or act like one. This is especially a problem when it comes to social characters, because lots of games like to have your social checks modified by how well you can roleplay. This can penalize the player for wanting to be that particular type of character. So how do we make it easier for socially awkward people to have highly charismatic characters?

We cheat.

A common way to play more intelligent characters is to have the GM feed you extra info. You can directly ask the GM for hints on a puzzle, tell you if plans might have problems, etc. We can do a similar thing with manipulative characters: the GM and other players can work with out-of-game to make their characters easier to manipulate.

Everyone's Just a Giant Pile o' Buttons

In order to influence someone, you need to know about them. Everyone has likes, dislikes, hopes, fears, secrets, etc. Your character could have some mechanical way of finding these out, where your GM would work with you to make that way effective. The better you do, the more you learn and the more audacious you can be. A minor success might be listening to gossip or doing some internet stalking. A major one could be looking your target's ex to spill everything to you during a drunken sadfest or even getting a look at his diary.

Note this opens up a lot of interesting roleplaying opportunities as a side effect of learning the information, as opposed to a requirement for learning it. The difference is that your success is guaranteed, so the roleplay is about determining how you did it instead of about determining if you can do it. This is a great place to work with the GM and other players: if Dave is so paranoid about people seeing his diary that he keeps it in his backpack at all times, what circumstances gave you a chance to peek?

I Feel You Bro

A good manipulator can sense how other people feel, almost like a sixth sense. In this case, that sixth sense is metagaming. If players tell you what their characters are feeling and why they're feeling that way, your character can know it.

Let's Not Mention That I Killed Your Dog

In order to persuade someone you have to know how what you say will impact them. Normally this is pretty hard, because most people don't even know themselves about how they'll respond to things. Fortunately, the players and GM have complete control over the other characters, so you should be able to ask "How will telling you XYZ affect your character?" and get a mostly accurate response. This helps you map out what your character should or shouldn't say and then pick the 'right' choice to get what you want. In game, of course, it will look like your character intuitively knows just the right thing to say. You can flip this around, too: "How can I get you to react this way", which helps if you can't think of what to say but your character can.

This also leads to some great opportunities to play out manipulation gone horribly wrong. Under some cases people should be able to lie to you and make you do the wrong thing. Alternatively, they could say "Your character thinks ABC will happen, but actually DEF will".

Summary

It's easier to play a charismatic character if everybody else at the table is helping you make the character charismatic. This means giving you extra info or working with you in the roleplaying parts so that your character can better control their characters. It's your character that's supposed to be cunning, not you. You shouldn't be required to do the heavy lifting.