How my argument paper compare with my "Rogerian argument"

My argument paper compares and contrasts with a rogerian argument. I really don't have much of a common ground when I am writing to a republican to vote democrat. In my paper I am really just trying to tell him the pros of voting for Barack Obama over John McCain. I guess there can be some common agreement when I say that America needs some change. However, there isn't agreement when I talk about who should bring about the change. There definitely isn't any agreement between me and the republican over Barack Obama. I do in fact try to explore all sides to the situation. I compare and contrast Obama and McCain and try to show why Obama's plan is better for the country. With doing this I think I effectively reasoned and presented my position like in the rogerian argument. In the end I think my argument essay is for the most part different from a rogerian argument.