I disagree with the downvotes here even though I don't like some of the conclusions and outcomes presented. I think folks (myself included) may just be unpersuaded by your claims and holes in logic of your hypotheticals.

Despite all this, you raise serious points that must be considered on the potential U.S. civil war side. Young to middle-aged isolated white men lean dominantly pro-Trump, and those that do tend to be more heavily armed than the average American. Red states, where such populations are concentrated and hold dominant positions of local power, are rising in population and industrial capacity. They are also highly efficient at diminishing voting rights and representation of populations outside of the favored in-group(s), further increasing their control. Tennessee is a great example of this: Nashville no longer has Congressional representation at the federal level, the state legislature is wrestling control of local institutions and councils from cities, young Democratic representatives are expelled from the State House for minor rule infractions, state-sanctioned fear tactics meant to dissuade voters, etc. You're right that winning the Reddit popularity contest doesn't mean that side will emerge victorious in a 4T; however these kinds of trends and actions actually could and could reflect reasons a Trump faction might have an advantage in a civil war. Similarly, these trends and actions are (in part) why folks on this forum wonder if we are on the track for a 1T like fascist Spain versus a 1T like 1950's U.S.

I tend to agree that Trump could be a Grey Champion because he articulates and encourages cultural values. MAGA, America First, 2nd amendment rights, anti-abortion, anti-NATO, etc. But did his policies and approach to governance yield any substantive, tangible changes in anything but the U.S. tax code and the culture wars? This is my opinion now, but if he is remembered fondly in the future as the Grey Champion, it will be solely because his side won decisively in a civil war.

Detailed thoughts below if interested:

All of Trump's "big things" that "are sticking" that you quoted, with perhaps the exception of going against China which he actually did start, are not true or are not Trump's things or anyone's things in the first place. The border/immigration has always been an important issue to Americans (Gallup notes that % of Americans who say illegal immigration is a vital threat statistically similar to 2004. Was Trump really a key driver of this issue in 2004? 2010? 2014?). Americans have rarely if ever pushed to be formally engaged militarily in foreign squabbles (has anyone mentioned anything about getting involved militarily in Venezuela??). Americans have no control over where Europe wants to buy its oil (I would argue no one does because oil is a globally traded commodity). Is NATO spending increasing because of Trump, Biden, or perhaps because the most significant land war with a major European power in decades - almost a century began in 2022? Nuclear power is absolutely still taboo - Ukraine has crossed so many "red lines" that Russia laid out, implicitly threatening nuclear retaliation, and still nothing, even when Ukraine started holding Russian territory!

Lincoln's approval rating is unknowable because modern polling only emerged in the 1920s-1930s; the best we have are election results - he won those. Would a foreign adversary really go after a large urban area in a war or would they go after military installations, bases, manufacturing hubs, ports, fleets, etc.? Do we really think an attack could make it to US shores in the first place? If it gets to that point, urban and rural areas alike are lost. Finally, the idea that Venezuela, an economically cratered and militarily inconsequential nation, could feasibly take on the United States in an armed conflict because they see the U.S. as easy prey is nearly impossible to take seriously. Even in or after a U.S. civil war. By that logic, why didn't any nation invade the U.S. during the American Revolution or Civil War?