[PopsiclePete]

Or maybe the definition of "Civil War" is more fluid than we think? I don't expect large-scale devastation and cities in ruins like in Syria, no.

But let's do some fun math. Roughly 70 million voted for Trump. Take away the housewives, the boomers, the Latinos in Florida and the less fanatical, more old-school Republicans that delivered Texas.

So let's say "only" a million are left out of the 70 and let's say that "only" a third of those - so 300k are willing to go to war for "their" President.

That's still huge trouble for this country. No, we won't be a failed state but a never-ending far-right insurgency that right-wing and foreign media constantly encourage and feed while the GOP publicly disavow is not something that we know how to deal with either.

The Left will be on the receiving end of it all by its very nature it will be reluctant to confront it beyond "let's talk about it".

[DubiousPusher]

> Or maybe the definition of "Civil War" is more fluid than we think?

Exactly this. Retroactively, we combine groups and intentions to simplify the narrative of most conflicts. With good reason, following the dizzying array of groups and actions involved in any conflict is impossible for all but the most determined and specialized scholars. The popular story has to be simplified.