Everybody wants to talk about a Civil War 2.0, but I think few people really think about what that means.
As others have pointed out, I believe the differences will be Urban vs. Rural so how do battle lines get drawn? Are battle lines even necessary?
The big question is what will all those country boys who signed up for military service do? Will they honor their oaths, or will they follow Robert E. Lee’s example and choose to side with their homeland?
If they honor their oaths, they cities have already won. Otherwise, things could be quite interesting.
And, for the record, I have come to believe that we can effectuate massive change and bring the cities to their knees without massive amounts of bloodshed. The rural population still has the upper hand as so many distopian novels and movies have already pointed out.
Real-life experiences would seem to indicate this is not the case.
See worked examples in Venezuela, Argentina, Ecuador, Serbia and Syria. Small rural enclaves get overrun and pillaged by Government-sponsored militia from the cities. Whoever controls the cities usually dominates the surrounding areas.
That bug-out location in the middle of nowhere gets wiped out by local bandits - or becomes the headquarters for the local bandits.
Small towns and major suburbs around the cities may do very well. Central urban cores often get wrecked during factional disputes and they will not repaired for the next twenty years or so. Unpopular minorities who used to live in those areas are expelled.
"The Troubles" are highly localized. One hundred miles away, life may appear to go on as though nothing is happening. It is very deceptive. The troubles appear in waves which pass from one metro area to another.
Small groups with good organization and access to support from outside the immediate area will usually prevail.