When the week started, it looked like Florida was headed for a real showdown, as polls showed Romney stalling and Gingrich surging. A state that shocked the GOP establishment in 2010 by nominating Governor Rick Scott seemed poised to do it again.

Then the plane crashed.

The combination of Romney's performance on the stage and on the stump, and Gingrich's inability to avoid the self-destruct button (picking a fight with Marco Rubio & proposing a Moon Colony) has taken away almost all of the uncertainty about next Tuesday. Absent a big surprise and/or a Romney stumble, Mitt Romney will win Florida. The only question at this point is the margin.

So what does that mean for the President's chances here come November? It will be close, but I do believe he will carry Florida again.

First, over the last five Presidential elections, some 32 million votes have been cast in Florida, with less than 60,000 votes separating the two parties - a margin that would trigger a manual recount under Florida laws.

Secondly, the states demographics are getting friendlier, as both Hispanic and Caribbean populations grow. In 2000, Blacks (both African-American and Caribbean) and Hispanics made up 26% of the vote. In 2008, that number was almost 28%. In 2012, we could see that number push 30% in 2012, which helps the President, particularly in the key Central Florida counties that decide Florida elections.

Finally, the President is in a much better position today than he was four years ago. As little as six months out in 2008, he trailed McCain by as much as ten points. Today, he is in a dead heat with Romney, and has an improving economy. Further, the robust Obama ground operation is light years ahead of what it was at the same point four years ago.

No Republican President has gone to the White House without Florida since Calvin Coolidge in 1924, and Romney has no real path without it. Because of that, expect all eyes to be on the Sunshine State yet again, just as it should be!

Anyone in politics will tell you that timing is everything, and the current media frenzy surrounding insurance coverage for birth control demonstrates that point. The highly polarized debate has given rise to allegations of governmental interference and a purported "war" on religious freedom. But much of the over-heated rhetoric is due to the increasingly polarized state of our nation. Moreover, we wouldn't even be having this conversation if the Congress had managed to place the power to choose insurance in the hands of the individual.

For reasons that date back to wage controls imposed during World War II, the vast majority of Americans purchase healthcare coverage through their employers, instead of directly from insurance providers. If we had the opportunity to rebuild our healthcare system from scratch today, very few experts would advocate in favor of the current model.

In 2009, Senators Wyden (D-OR) and Bennett (R-UT) re-introduced a bill -- with strong bipartisan support -- that would have disconnected healthcare coverage from the employer. There were many important features to the Wyden-Bennett bill, some of which are reflected in today's Affordable Healthcare Act, but a critical element of the plan would have brought 180 million Americans into a single coverage pool. This would have driven down the cost of insurance to the consumer and allowed greater choice in coverage. It also would have pulled healthcare decisions away from employers (including religious institutions) altogether -- putting healthcare decisions in the hands of individuals, where they belong.

The Wyden-Bennett plan would have created a system that works very much like today's Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, where 7 million government employees pick from a menu of insurance plans. These plans all cover catastrophic health care costs but provide different benefits and have different cost-sharing arrangements. Employees pay about one-quarter of the plan's premium but are given a choice of plans based upon individual health care needs, the cost of the premium, and the specific benefits the plans provide. As a woman in my child bearing years, this could give me the flexibility to choose a plan that covers pregnancy care, birth control, or even fertility treatment based on my needs and on my beliefs.

The Affordable Healthcare Act makes many improvements in the healthcare system -- guaranteed coverage for individuals, pre-existing condition coverage, and subsidies for covering the uninsured; however, the time has passed to make the necessary changes that could have avoided the "rule" conundrum that has now captured the national conversation. For better or, indeed, for worse, employer-based insurance coverage is a part of our healthcare landscape.

As the Administration works to implement the current law, polarized politics continue to dominate the discussion over the contraception rule. Oddly, this debate did not erupt when 28 different states adopted a nearly identical rule requiring coverage of contraception -- eight of which do not even offer any exemption for churches (which Obama's rule did, even before the recent "accommodation"). Further, in 2001, more than a dozen Republican congressmen pushed for a similar rule -- established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission -- to be enshrined as federal law. So, why are Republicans now using this rule as a political play against Democrats?

Our politicians need to start thinking about the real losers in this debate. For many low-income women aged 18-34, the cost of contraceptives is often out of reach. And birth control is not only about contraception. In many instances, it is a medical necessity for women who suffer from polycystic ovaries and endometriosis and is also used to help prevent ovarian cancer. The compromise reached on Friday reflects a balance between the protection of women's health and religious freedom. It is an agreement that should be a welcome solution to a challenging problem. So, why are some politicos still crying foul? When you ask that question in an election year, you quickly realize that timing is, indeed, everything.

(Des Moines, Iowa) The time for attack ads, campaign debate zingers and rhetoric is over. In just a matter of hours, voters in Iowa will head to houses, churches and schools in their communities to cast their ballots in Americas first Caucus. Unlike a primary election in which voters go to a polling booth to cast their ballots, the Iowa Caucus provides neighbors the opportunity to sway or argue with one another as to which candidate should prevail in the Caucus. Supporters of a particular candidate are allowed to speak for a few moments in favor of their preferred nominee and then registered Republican voters cast their ballots - ballots which are quickly tabulated across the state to select a winner.

Along with GoVote.com National Democratic Editor Jamal Simmons, I have been in Iowa for the past two days to cover the Caucus and provide color and context for you. Immediately upon arrival to Iowa yesterday, it is clear this is a state whose citizens take their responsibility as the first Caucus in the nation very seriously. Unlike most other states, Iowa is small enough for citizens to get to know the candidates up close and personal and ask very difficult, pointed questions about the viability of their particular candidacy.

At the same time, I was struck by what USA Today reporter Susan Page noted last night at an event with Iowa Governor Terry Barnstad there are thousands of "political tourists," here - people have descended into Iowa to support their preferred Republican candidate even though they are unable to physically cast a vote. I met several of these political tourists both yesterday and today and unless you asked them if they lived in Iowa, you would assume they were citizens eligible to cast their ballots given their passion and interest in the Caucus tonight.

And passion there is. It is difficult to turn on the television here, whether cable or local programming and not encounter two or three political ads in a row. The candidates have canvassed the state over the past 48 hours and they have been relentless in their pursuit of committed supporters who will show up this evening to cast a ballot in their favor.

Earlier today, I attended a "Rock the Caucus" event modeled on MTVs "Rock the Vote" campaign to energize young people to vote. At a rally at Valley High School in West Des Moines this morning, Congressmen Paul (R-TX), Bachmann (R-MN) and former Senator Santorum sought to curry favor with hundreds of high school seniors with impassioned last minute speeches. And while the crowd was enthusiastic and responsive to the candidates, I was struck that for all of the rallies, commercials and paid advertisements, only 140,000 Republicans are expected to vote this evening. Id love to see the amount of money spent by each candidate versus the number of votes they actually receive.

Regardless, this has been an exciting trip to Americas heartland to watch our democracy operate up close and personal. Starting at 7pm CST/8PM EST it will be time for citizens in Iowa to participate in selecting the next republican nominee - a Caucus process in which they will GoVote in their neighborhoods. GoVote.com will monitor the winners and losers here in Iowa as well as the early primary states in the days and weeks to follow.