THE Republican Party is headed the way of the Federalists and Whigs. As white men inexorably constitute a smaller percentage of the voting population, the Democrats can expect to roll from victory to victory in presidential elections, supported by an ever-growing coalition of blacks, Hispanics, young people and women. In order to stay in the game, the GOP must fundamentally recreate itself. That, at least, is the scenario being spun by much of the post-election commentary. Such hyperventilating has become de rigeur following presidential campaigns. So allow me to push back a little and make the case that, as with past pronouncements of political realignments, much of the fulminating about a Republican demographic Waterloo is overblown. It certainly seems odd to declare a realignment when the result of the election is the maintenance of the status quo, including Republican control of the House. There is no hint of a seismic demography-driven shift away from the GOP in the 113th Congress. As for the White House, the important thing to remember is that Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney on November 6th. In a sense, this can be seen as a triumph of one party over the other, but an overly broad interpretation of the result will lead to overconfidence on the part of Democrats. Take the black vote. As my colleague noted in an earlier post, the share of black voters has been rising for some time, but it jumped considerably as a result of Mr Obama's candidacy. Is this sustainable? Over at the Monkey Cage, a sceptical John Sides cites the work of political scientist Matt Barreto, who found that 79% of blacks are "very enthusiastic" about the Democratic Party...now. Only 47% believe they'll stay that way once Mr Obama leaves office.

The enthusiasm of young voters (aged 18 to 29) may have also reached a temporary peak. According to exit polls, Mr Obama won the youth vote by 24 points this year. That's down from his 31-point victory in 2008, but still a dramatic improvement on the nine-point win John Kerry achieved with this group in 2004. Does anyone really believe young people will be as fired up about the next nominee as they were about Mr Obama?

What about Latinos? Again, here's Mr Sides:

[The Republicans] don’t need to win 75% of the Latino vote to win a presidential election. Even 40% might suffice. Consider this, also from Barreto: in a January 2012 Latino Decisions poll, Jeb Bush had a 67% approval rating with Hispanics in Florida, while Romney had a 40% rating and Obama a 60% rating. Or consider this: in the Latino Decisions exit poll, 31% of Latino voters said they would be more likely to vote for the Republican Party if it supported comprehensive immigration reform.

"Am I suggesting that all the Republicans need to do is get behind a path to citizenship and nominate Jeb Bush?" asks Mr Sides. "Of course not." After immigration, Latino voters prioritise education and health care, issues that tend to favour a Democratic Party more inclined to spend on such things.

But let's not overstate the problem for Republicans either. Latinos, like most voters, look first at the economy, which doesn't reliably favour either party. On immigration, Republicans are obviously sending the wrong signal, but they are competing with a party that has so far forsaken reform, and a president who has a penchant for deportations. Republicans, like Democrats, are savvy political animals who want to win and wield power. They will try to close the gap on this issue, as they did not too long ago under George W. Bush.

If they do, Nate Silver notes, Republicans could make states like Colorado and Nevada competitive again, while improving their even-odds chances in Florida. "If Republicans moderated their tone on social issues," continues Mr Silver, "they might be more competitive in [states like Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Iowa], while regaining ground in Northern Virginia and in the Philadelphia suburbs." As memories of the auto bail-out fade, Ohio will no doubt be a toss-up again in 2016. On the whole, though, Mr Silver sees the electoral-college advantage for the Democrats persisting.

Mr Silver is more convincing than most pundits, whose less numerical explanations for a political realignment seem to reappear every four years. Still, it is not too difficult to imagine how a Republican other than Mr Romney, facing a Democrat other than Mr Obama, could chart a path to victory through the states. The Republican Party certainly needs to make some changes, but they are not as daunting as some would suggest. Adjustment, not transformation, might be enough to wipe the grins off the faces of the MSNBC crowd and end all talk of the coming Democratic hegemony.