It seems to me that the 2008 presidential election is going to be nasty. Not just in campaign rhetoric but in what happens after the election has occured in November. There are two scenarios (likely scenarios anyway, it is possible that we wake up to President Barr or Nader but it's almost as unlikely as Micheal Moore producing an unbiased documentary) and either could spell trouble.
Trouble would start if Obama wins and starts trying to implement some of the more moonbatty of his campaign positions. Read Tom Kratman's "A State of Disobedience" for what might happen next. Important note: non-Obama voters are (in general) the ones who grow the food and own the personal weapons. Obama is, IMHO, not going to appeal to the rural voter in so many ways that it seems unlikely that he would get many rural votes. On the other hand he may well get a sufficiently massive number of urban votes to overcome that deficit. The question will be whether the (more) rural inhabitants get annoyed enough to start considering civil disobedience after he starts his term as president, and how many (sub)urban inhabitants agree with them. This may sound like scaremongering but note that on Baen's Bar there has been a thread noting that prices of "scary black guns" and ammo are increasing at gun shows. Currently this is merely anecdotal evidence but someone could do the research to see whether sales/prices of guns and ammo are increasing.
Should Obama not win then we can expect the nutroots part of the US to go even more nuts. They are already making noises about how people won't voting for Obama because of racism. I've met a number of Americans who seem convinced that the only way Obama can lose is via a combination of racism and evil republican tricks. If this is representative of a significant fraction of the US population (primarily the young and the black) then it seems likely that we could see lots of protests, riots and so on as these people take their anger to the streets and try to force a new vote/recount whatever. This could be even more serious if we have a vote which is as close as the one in 2000. If, as is quite possible, we end up with one or more states going 50.1%:49.9% then these protests may indeed attract support from more than the radical fringe. And if the Democrats (I count this as less likely) also fail to make gains in the Senate/House races this could help inflame passions and accusations of election rigging.
Although I've noted the possibility of perceived election irregularities leading to Lefty dissatisfaction it is quite possible that it could also lead to Righty annoyance too. Unless there is a crushing defeat for one candidate (and at the time of writing this is unlikely) then the losing side may well look to dispute the result and the disputes could well escalate from the courts to the streets. This would seem to be particularly likely if electoral fraud is identified/reported by someone who is perceived as biased themselves.
It worries me that US society seems to be getting more polarized and that in large part due to tit-for-tat retaliation the various tribes are now beginning to see each other as the enemy instead of the opposition.