I think it is not, as everyone's perspective of the world is subjective because everyone has unique experiences.  Realism is an idealistic idea, so by saying you're a realist, and, therefore, admitting you have succumbed to such an ideal, you are proving you are not a realist.

I would love to hear your opinions of this concept. Thank you.

The pessimist complains about the wind; The optimist expects it to change; The realist adjusts the sails.

Not depending on any metaphysical event but on the probability from past experiments and and experience to determine the world around you. Regardless of the person or or subject view but one of general agreement of facts.

Granted that everything is viewed subjectively - more or less, (and being objective is not the same as being realistic) but realism is largely a matter of belief in the material, the provable, the real physical (as opposed to the surreal, metaphysical) world.

Its often thought that being a realist is opposed somehow to being an optimist (realists = pessimist) and I don't think that is right either.  Look, if you walked up to me tomorrow and told me I had my A List crew, in my home theater and tried to tell me that the show would be some sort of disaster I would say "No."  Its not that I'm some sort of cockeyed optimist.  I'm not.  Its that I know and trust those people (myself included) to pull off what needs to be done, and do it right.  Its not optimism, its a realistic assessment that the people I have (including myself) are a) the best at what they do, b) have done it more than just about anyone else I could get, c) have skills for avoiding problems before they become problems, d) are not easy to faze.

In the process of doing thousands of shows with these guys (and a few girls) I've never seen them fail, so the only assessment is that they are good at what they do.   Being good at what they do, if not the best, and being highly skilled with massive amounts of training at that specific site, the only realistic assessment is that of optimism.

Likewise, any person thinking that changing one person here or there (even at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave) is going to change everything is not being realistic. 

Beyond that, there are a big dog pile of things that call themselves 'realism' - in art, in ethics, in philosophy, and in politics.  You need to define exactly what you are talking about.

nothing is real. Particularly this response.                                              >

You remind me of someone ~laugh~ 

Back to your question..
For sure calling oneself a 'realist' is an idea and an illusion, a self-image, indeed unrealistic. So I wouldn't call myself a realist, but at least it is possible in ones perception to be in parts realistic. Probably this has to do and depends on ones knowledge and specially with self knowledge.

Lisagirl has hit the nail on the head.

It is very possible to be a realist to at least the physical events that are around you.  I don't think a person can be a realist on everything but many things with proper reasoning can induce realism.

An optimistic person will go out on a picnic without looking at the weather report.

A pesstimistic person will not even go out on a picnic.

The realist will watch the weather report and note that there is a 50/50 chance of rain so they will go on a picnic but take an umbrella just in case.