I agree that the system is growing ripe for an upheaval. However, I don't see how the election of Hillary Clinton in 2016 would be the spark for one. Third party candidates can upset the electoral map, but even a Ross Perot is just one person. It would take a third party to get a significant number of seats in Congress to seriously upset the status quo, and I can't see such a party developing in this landscape. Personally, I'd like to see an independent movement, where a significant number of politicians did not belong to a political party, or caucus with one.
Careful what you wish for. I actually think that this is an outside possibility, but only for the reason that I think wealthy individuals might start to bypass parties and buy their own candidate blocs. I could envision Tom Steyer, the Kochs, Sheldon Adelson, etc, each deciding that pary politics are inefficient and dilute their core values. (E.g. why should Tim Steyer care about labor unions, or why should Adelson care about abortion? Currently, their candidates have to pretend to care about a lot of things, when the backer is typically an issue-minded person.) They could, with the current soft corruption system codified into law, take matters into their own hands and start sponsoring "independents," who of course would be "Washington outsiders" who are "beholden to no one". I hate party politics, but it still might be better than six or seven individuals owning a significant chunk of Congress. With how expensive it is to run a campaign, this is the only way a significant number of independents will ever be elected.Personally, I'd like to see an independent movement, where a significant number of politicians did not belong to a political party, or caucus with one.
I think the election of Hillary could be the spark. Just like LBJ/Goldwater was the spark that caused the GOP to eject the Birchers and others. The only thing uniting the GOP is their dislike for Hillary. With the Dem's lead in the electoral college, a win by Hillary could be the spark to throw the GOP into complete disarray. The desire to win national elections versus winning gerrymandered Congressional districts will end being to root.
I could see that. But, I think that would largely depend upon the GOP candidate, and how much blame could be laid at his (no prospective hers atm) feet. If the election is a close one, they might yet blame the candidate's strategy and the role of his conservative credentials might be debatable. If Hillary wins handily, then yes, I could see that happening. IMO real pressure will befall the GOP after the next census. Gerrymandering enabled them to consolidate electoral power, and significantly contributed to their ability to take Congress. However, the population is changing, and the new district maps will likely demand that the GOP move back towards the center to hold as many congressional seats. No doubt, the Tea Party faction won't want to make that move.