My post was very general and open-ended, and should've been a natural for discussion. You see the similarity between the two maps at the very large scale, but the devil is certainly in the details.

And both of you picked up on the grand subtext: What does the future hold? BTW, have you come across any recently-published science fiction that does not include the fall of the United States before mid-century as part of its backstory? This is today's zeitgeist.

The devil is literally in the details...it's correct that when you zoom in close enough, the red/blue map doesn't divide into neat geographical regions that could then line up and go to war. The reality will be more of a circular firing squad effect, if it ever gets to shooting.

Maybe the shooting can be avoided if we start working toward a political settlement now; an amicable divorce, as I've advocated before. While redness/blueness is heterogenous down to the county level, the large scale map does reveal statistical leanings, and that could still form the basis of a division: The west coast and northeast coast are/contain birds of a feather, enough to form a consensus on a new government.

If shooting can't be avoided, like ER said, it'll be very granular and spotty. No fronts, few regions unequivocally belonging to one side or another. Small towns fortressing up against an anticipated invasion of city hordes. Big cities walling up or taking advantage of terrain. In other words, I think we're likely to see a state of permanent anarchy, everybody shooting indiscriminately at everybody else, rather than a civil war with clear sides and the prospect of a definite outcome some day.

It's worth doing a reality check from time to time: Is it really impossible now to restore the status quo? Can Humpty Dumpty be reassembled?

People don't compromise when they perceive that their survival is at stake. The powerful and wealthy seem to get more insecure the higher they pile it (which, deep down, is actually a rational reaction). And the 99% is feeling like...well, like Bowser's post lays out, squeezed at the most fundamental levels of food and shelter and health. Who gives a rat's ass about the theory of trickle down economics when all that seems to trickle down is the shit?

I think Bowser's correct that "Occupy" is a trial run. Or rather, I think it's really true, unlike the teahadists, that Occupy is a truly spontaneous and distributed movement, and will evolve rapidly.

The difference is that the Tea Party movement went through a brief period of anarchy and then crystallized (or fossilized, if you prefer) with a standard dogma and standard operating procedures. The "final" Tea Party looks like a pretty generic political organization.

The style of the Occupiers that I've seen so far is experimental and iterative. They're making it up as they go, finding what works and what doesn't, like the system of hand signals to cater to local public-gathering ordinances that our local wingnuts hooted so derisively over. That's a thoroughly modern style: It's how software development is done, for example, small steps and experiments and cut and retry; and it's a style that, while it starts out slow, produces epic results in the long run.

But note that it won't be the Occupiers who finish the race. That label is just a phase they're going through, and while many of the same individuals will be there at the end, their organization(s) and methods and plans will be unrecognizable based on what we know today.

von Clausewitz noted that the best-laid plans never survive contact with the enemy. Losers ignore that advice, winners take it to heart and stay flexible. Does anybody associate the quality of "flexibility" with conservatives?