Initially posted here on Jan. 5th, 2012.You may think I'm joking; but I'm actually quite serious. There were certain events during the caucus that made me scratch my head at the least.First off, on the procedure itself; it actually went quite smooth. The presidential selection was pretty straight-forward; a speaker or speakers would make the case for the candidates they would want to see win, then a secret ballot was cast, quite literally a little piece of paper in some of the rural districts (and a slip for the urban districts) was passed to each participant, they wrote their choice down, and put it in the box. The results were counted and splashed onto your favorite propaganda channel. The delegate selection was relatively peaceful too since most people left after the presidential selection, and only up to roughly 20 people in the most densely populated districts stuck it out for delegate selection. These are the hardest-core of the hardcore. They know their stuff, and are the people you all should aspire to be. The system may be rotten now; but we can change it systematically if we put the effort into it. However, I strongly caution those that are reading this; your caucus results will very. Each state puts their own little spin on the general rules, so you should probably call your head organizers to get the details. The only thing that made me scratch my head on Iowa's spin is the same-day party and voter registration. Anybody could march in with a couple of pieces of paper and declare themselves to be Republican. This has several implications that I will not list here to hinder the aide of enemies. For some grassroots perspective you can look at this map powered by Google Maps and news aggregation.The poll counting was a bit sketchy to me, the local radio stations claimed that some of the super-small districts physically lost the votes; but I find this hard to believe as 100% of the districts were counted. It took until 1:30 AM the following morning to solidify all the results.The results are definitely interesting in my opinion. These things tend to flip all the time and we'll know the main contenders as the political ballgame progresses toward general elections. Just remember, in recent history; those who took third or fourth in Iowa usually wound up in the hot-seat. If you're a Ron Paul fan, just hang on. If the opposition gets louder, you must get more ridiculous. On another hand, the press is now talking about him, where in 2008 it was a complete establishment game.I would like to take a paragraph to talk about the "establishment" candidates for a minute. If you're disinterested in this, feel free to move to the next one. Despite still taking first (by 8 votes), this year was actually quite the loser for Romney. Why is that? Despite dumping more money into his campaign, and having less Evangelical selections to make, Romney stagnated, meaning more people moved away from him. Analysts say the people of Iowa are tied heavily to their religion, and tend to include it as an influence for making a decision. Presumably, some of these people moved to Ron Paul, but most of the people moved on to Rick Santorum, who "true" Republicans and Evangelicalists wish to identify with the most (this movement was dubbed the "Santorum Surge"). Newt Gingrich was mad as usual and is now pulling out all the stops in biting political campaign ads, starting the morning of the caucus; calling Mitt Romney a liar. Gingrich finished off at a distant fourth, 7 points behind Ron Paul (trailing behind by roughly 10,000 votes). You may have heard that Bachmann dropped the race. Being polled, most Bachmann supporters supported Ron Paul second, so the numbers may work for Paul in the future. Don't bet on it for New Hampshire though. Why? Because the entire northeast area tends to have a very pro-establishment view. What does all this mean? It's pretty much a slap-fight from here. Who wants an in-depth analysis of New Hampshire's primary debate? I can give it to you right now!The New Hampshire primaries should prove to be intensely predictable.