As someone who is doing their PhD on realignments, I would say that I believe the evidence for anything besides a panic-driven blip is quite scant.
You may have to re-write your dissertation in about 15 months. 
I also will refer you to the realignment thread and the changing view of one of my professors.
I do not believe that there is, as of yet, strong evidence for a realignment. There is, however, some evidence for it and, as of yet no evidence against it. (I've actually been looking for that evidence.)
The only thing I can say is that there is tremendous evidence that 2008 was not the realigning election.
I'm waiting until 2012 until even determining any kind of argument, and I have read the thread... but saw nothing convincing... it reminds me of psychics, if you asks pretty general questions you can make the information fit the criteria.
I think there is evidence of some kind of shift in the electorate in 2008 - but not a traditional 'realignment' - we won't know until the next election what the nature of 2008 was... I think trying to tie congressional election results to argue for a re-alignment is a bit of a red-herring. The dynamics are very different.
2010 was a traditional panic election, where a local-driven set of candidates work against the status-quo, which was part of the reason why the Tea Party candidates did so well in the House, but poorly at the Senate level. People are angry and scared, so they vote against the incumbents... which is very normal - but it doesn't seem to suggest some broad-scale political shift present in 2010.
If you see large-scale shifts away from solid Democratic voting blocs to the GOP in 2012 that hold into 2016... or if Obama manages to hold onto his somewhat unique support-base in 2012.. then we'll know what kind of alignment has emerged.
I think whatever the next realignment is, I doubt will fit the traditional format.
Poll
