Reading the linked article reminded me of a journey to drop off a car for repair in far Southern MN about 35 years ago. A girl that happened to be a friend (she had already decided Mooses were only appropriate as friends) decided (or maybe he decided) to bring along her new somewhat smallish ( < 6', maybe 150 lbs ... I'm a bad judge of size) boyfriend for the journey. He may have not believed the "just friends thing" -- who knows.
Anyway, he was a raging liberal, back to nature sort who always thought it would be easy to "prove" one point or another to an obviously less intelligent nasty corporate type. He hated corporations, "loved the land" (he thought) -- he tended to be unemployed a lot and pretty much lived off the aforementioned girl, but he was very sure of his superior intelligence and had a very solid vision of "what people that lived on the land were like" -- in his vision, they were something like a cross between Thoreau, Jefferson and a modern hippie.
Needless to say, he often got so mad around me that his head would come close to exploding. The friend was concerned he might take a swing at me sometime, but I assured her I wouldn't hurt him in the unlikely event his brain attempted to override physics. The trip went about like usual until on the way back the girl needed a restroom, so we pulled into an out in the country tavern.
Naturally, I felt it was a good opportunity for a libation, so the crew headed in. Nice place -- jukebox, some sporting event on, pool table, lots of light beers, good crowd of folks in John Deere, Harley, NASCAR, etc caps, shirts. I struck up some "how are the crops doing around here" sort of conversation with a couple folks, had a brew -- and was by the estimation of "boyfriend" was WAY late for the door. Can't have been over 30 min, I'm pretty sure I held it to one beer.
When we were in the car and moving the admirer of "those that work the land" EXPLODED --- "I can't stand those kind of IGNORANT HICKS!! They are so stupid and uneducated it makes me sick!!! etc, etc."
I let him unreel for a bit before informing him that he had just met the folks that he thought he admired -- and I'd been in similar places in Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, New Hampshire, Texas, etc, and he had just hit a superb sample of what Americans that work the land are like. I advised him that he needed to come up with a new imaginary group of people to admire -- cuz he had just met his old dream team and found them wanting.
Short bit of half hearted attempted rebuttal followed by uncomfortable silence on his part -- the young lady did have the good sense to ignore prince oblivious poutings and chat amiably the rest of the way back I recall.
Fox news, Talk Radio and the Red State / Blue State divide came well after that night -- "progressives" are at this point pretty much agreed that they hate people like those in the country bar with a passion -- "bitter clingers" was BO's label for them. They know whom they hate now -- they may have some imaginary reasons like the false reporting on the NRA, but as the article points out, they are certain of their hatred.
Hillary nor 90% of the Democrat party have any interest in those voters -- "fly over country". Hillary needs to scrounge up enough votes to "win" the IA primary against somebody nobody ever heard of if current trends continue. Perhaps she might lose to "anyone else"?
Mostly the divide is so big that the government itself (all union workers), media, education and Democrat party simply loathes the tiny number of people that produce their food, and the now less than 50% that work for a private living rather than be paid off, work for, or in some way are significantly supported by the government.
From their POV, the trash that works the ground, drives the trucks, attends church most Sundays, has guns, listens to Country Music, etc are beneath contempt -- and probably dangerous. The "Red Staters" clearly "haven't gotten their minds right"! And the "progressives" really want to change that -- SOMEHOW. They have tried to be "reasonable" ... maybe it will take force.
Which means the guns can't be given up under any circumstance. The situation is pretty much exactly like the old MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) of the nuclear age. As much as the left would love to round up all the guns, the bulk of gun owners MUST make sure the "progressives" believe that it would be a bloodbath that would exceed the Civil War by at least 10x if not 100x ( 6 million or 60 million casualties).
Those numbers may be too small if the left believes they can win. The combination of Nazi Germany, the USSR and China ran up over 100 million in the 20th century. Statism has no qualms about mass murder -- it is a fact written in the blood of the greatest slaughter in history by far. The big wild card would come down to law enforcement and the military -- the left makes it abundantly clear that they hate those institutions as well. Will the police and soldiers serve the master that hates them to destroy their own families and communities? The last thread of liberty may well hang on that question.
The sad state of affairs is that the most law abiding, God fearing, generous, decent people in the country need to also be 100% clear that they WILL stand their ground on the 2nd Amendment. The Constitution, Separation of Powers, States Rights and Equal Protection are all gone -- the Right to Bear Arms is the last right that still stands. We are no longer a nation of laws -- only the guns are keeping the BOs and Hillarys from completing their progrom now.