With the dawn of 2016, there’s plenty to look forward to: a new year, resolutions, changes and—drumroll please—the presidential election. This election is significant for many reasons, ranging from Clinton’s second try to Trump’s soaring high in the national polls.

For the last year, as candidates threw their hats into the presidential run, everyone could see the competition heating up. Every form of media seemed to highlight something related to the election every week, whether it was Hilary’s controversial emails or Trump’s open statements. It was like reading "Gone Girl," you would think that one thing is happening at one moment but then there would be a sudden twist.

So, naturally, all eyes turned to Iowa this week as everyone eagerly awaited what this significant caucus election would indicate to us about who the nominees for each party will be. Just to recap: Iowa holds the first primary every election year and their votes matter a lot. Cue nominees running to Iowa to set up shop and rally the voters’ support.

So, what’s the verdict? As you may or may not know, Ted Cruz inched over Trump by a slim margin and apparently Bernie Sanders and Hilary Clinton tied. Or, according to recent updates, Clinton barely scraped past Bernie. Unfortunately, the Iowa caucus seems to be giving the rest of the country a big shrug, leaving it to the other states to decide for themselves. Next up is New Hampshire, so it’s time for the nominees to get a move-on and travel on up to the North East.

To me, it’s interesting how this presidential election brings to light the slight differences between candidates that are oh-so relevant to the public right now. Each presidential election is a signal of change, but this year the crystal ball of Iowa seems to look murky.

This brings to light one important question: what was the point of all the televised debates? Is America listening in on these debates? Did the debates make a difference? There was not a clear winner and the numbers don't seem to match up to the national polls.

This is a sign that perhaps the strict political party divisions are not enough to voice our exact needs, simply because we want liberal policies in some aspects and conservative policies in others. This would mean that an independent candidate would have to run, but that is not easy in the current political system because the Republican and Democratic parties have held the ground for so long.

From here there are two possible paths, either more independent nominees rise up with the voice of those of the middle ground in future elections or future candidates become more moderate and adhere less and less to their party's beliefs.