I agree with my party's goal but none of its primary candidates on the method

I have voted with the same political party in most elections since I was old enough to vote. This year's primary is the first time I have opened the sample ballot and felt that none of the candidates fit the reason I joined the party in the first place.

They all claim the same broad goal. Their methods are very different. One candidate offers the most ambitious plan but speaks about opponents as if compromise itself were corruption. Another seems capable of governing but avoids committing to the part of the issue I care about most. A third is closer to me on policy and has almost no visible organization.

Friends keep giving me strategic instructions. Vote for the most electable candidate. Vote for the strongest position so the party learns. Vote for the person you actually want and stop trying to predict strangers. Every rule sounds sensible until I apply it to the specific field.

I am trying to separate four questions: What can the office actually do? Which disagreements are about goals and which are about implementation? What evidence is there that each candidate can build support or administer anything? And which compromise would leave me feeling represented rather than merely less alarmed?

The harder truth is that I want the ballot to express a complete identity. It cannot. A primary vote is one choice in a process involving institutions, coalitions, timing, and uncertainty. Treating it as a moral autobiography may be why every option feels like betrayal.

My current plan is to write the three decisions I believe the office is likely to face, rank them, and compare the candidates only on those decisions using their own materials and credible reporting. Electability would be one factor, not a magic word.

How do you choose when you share a political goal but distrust every proposed route? What makes a strategic vote responsible rather than simply fearful?