Republican pollster Ed Goeas has released a two-page memo with his take on last night's results. Goeas writes:

The Democrats' key argument is that yesterday's elections represent absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things, most of all they were certainly not a referendum on Obama. If anything, they continue, the elections represent troubling signs for a Republican party about to lose control to a conservative grassroots rebellion. They would have us believe that Republicans, in winning, have in fact lost.

If journalists print this spin with a straight face, then they will also have to report that up is down, black is white, and the Redskins will win the Superbowl this season.

Goeas goes on to offer four points that he says dispel the Democratic myths of the 2009 elections:

1. While today's elections were not a referendum on President Obama as a person, they are a repudiation of the Democrat big-spending and big-government agenda being foisted upon voters.

2. The electorate has not fundamentally evolved as some predicted following the 2008 election.

3. The so-named "Civil War" within the Republican Party is a minor skirmish compared to the struggle for cohesion in the Democratic majority in Congress.

4. The conservative resurgence, including the Tea Party movement, is an energizing force for Republicans who live by fundamental fiscally conservative principles.

Read the whole memo and decide for yourself if he makes a convincing case.

Meanwhile, for the sake of comparison, Greg Sargent has the Democrats' talking points on last night's election.

UPDATE: And here are those talking points in action, with Jake Tapper's interview of David Axelrod. A taste of the exchange:

TAPPER: Democrats lose the two big governors races, independents break for the Republicans -- how is this not a reflection on the president or his policies?

AXELROD: I think you've got to focus on the race that was actually about national issues. The one race that really focused on the President and national issues was this race up in New York 23, the special election in a distinct that's been held by Republicans for 140 years. The Republicans got involved in a civil war up there. The Democrat embraced the President's policies and his vision for the future. And now a Democrat holds the seat for the first time in 140 years. So I think there was auguring in that problems for the Republican Party, because they've got a deep fissure, they pushed moderates away. And it was encouraging for us.

A bit later, Tapper tries again:

TAPPER:; What about the independent voters? They broke even in Virginia between Obama and John McCain in 2008. Yesterday McDonnell walked away with them over Creigh Deeds. Are they leaving the Democratic Party, is the Democratic Coalition, the Obama coalition bleeding independents?

AXELROD: I think one thing it that has happened is that Republicans are leaving the Republican party. The Republicans are at a 20-year low in terms of Republican identification. Some of those Republicans now call themselves independents -- and yet I think in state races they are supporting Republicans. The big party identification question is what's going to happen to moderate Republicans. Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, a lot of the leaders of the Republican party went into a Republican district, essentially purged the Republican candidate for being too moderate, and said to moderate Republicans: "there's no place for you in our party." And they lost a seat that was held by Republicans for 140 years.  I think that's the greatest story that has come out of this election.

The White House and its allies spin this angle as much as they want - it's certainly how the post-election kabuki works. The only danger for President and his party is if they really believe it.