This was a sprawl election
Like most of the suburbs, sprawl is about greater landscaping that comes with larger lawns. This was a sprawl election.
The 2020 result promises to profoundly alter the nation’s direction, forcing an abrupt end to four years of Trump and Republican rule. Yet unlike other elections that have shifted control in the White House — most recently in 2008 and 2016 — it was not accompanied by any fundamental realignment of the American electorate.
If anything, the result reinforced many of the elements that defined Trump’s victory four years ago, especially the stark divide between rural and urban America.
“The 2016 election changed a lot. This didn’t change a ton,” Borick said. “It was setting things in their new place.”
That new place is one marked by a standoff between two very different blocs within the population that have two very different visions of America.
“You have a fast-diversifying younger population. And you still have a large, older, White population,” said William Frey, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “That’s where we’re going to be for a while.”
Despite Biden’s victory, Republicans were holding out hope they could close the gap. They were also pushing in court to throw out ballots received after Election Day or that were “cured” after initially being submitted incorrectly. Trump attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani said Saturday that the campaign plans to file a lawsuit Monday alleging voter fraud in Pennsylvania. But judges have so far been unsympathetic to lawsuits that have been filed, and the Trump campaign has produced no evidence to substantiate the president’s claim of widespread fraud.
The term “urban sprawl” was first used in an article in The Times in 1955 as a negative comment on the state of London’s outskirts. Definitions of sprawl vary; researchers in the field acknowledge that the term lacks precision. Batty et al. defined sprawl as “uncoordinated growth: the expansion of community without concern for its consequences…
Total war is warfare that includes any and all civilian-associated resources and infrastructure as legitimate military targets, mobilizes all of the resources of society to fight the war, and gives priority to warfare over non-combatant needs.
The term has been defined as “A war that is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in which the laws of war are disregarded.”[1]
In the mid-19th century, scholars identified total war as a separate class of warfare. In a total war, the differentiation between combatants and non-combatants diminishes due to the capacity of opposing sides to consider nearly every human, including non-combatants, as resources that are used in the war effort.[2]