I don't think Edwards has much room to rise for two reasons.

One, this race has been about Clinton and Obama for so long that I doubt he can seriously break through and get past Obama.

Secondly, I think to people who are paying close attention, his accepting matching funds really hurt him.  Who wants a Presidential candidate that will be at a financial disadvantage when they can have Clinton or Obama who should raise more cash than the Republican.

It in the INTERNALS of these latest polls where you find the true state of the race.   I don't think you can make a credible case here, Todd, that these last 2 polls reflect any type of movement.  Look at the recent polling data we had seen:

1. On 10/24 Pew Research released a poll showing a 21% margin for Clinton

2. On 10/25 the FOX News poll was released and showed a 17% margin for Clinton.

3. On 10/28 we saw Zogby's poll with a 14% margin for Clinton.

4. The Quinnipiac poll that was released on 10/30 showed a 26% margin

5.  Debate

6. Rasmussen's poll with data entirely after the debate shows a 23% margin

7. Newsweek poll with data entirely after the debate shows a 19% lead.

8. ABC/WaPo poll with data partly before and partly after the debate shows a 23% margin.

I really don't see that a credible case can be made here for any movement whatsoever due to the debate.    If anything, the 3 pre-debate polls averaging 19% are below the more recent polling data we have seen, which has averaged at 21.6%, so if you are going to compare from a broader national average (rather than each poll within its own universe) one could say that she has received an upswing post-debate instead.  

Now, one thing that stood out at me:  You mentioned that the Quinnipiac poll has stated that the attacks have taken a toll on Clinton, but what you fail to address is that that only holds true for a general election comparison between Clinton and Giuliani, whereas for the purposes of assessing Democratic nomination data Clinton has actually increased her margin over the Democratic contenders from the last time Quinnipiac had conducted a national poll (end of August) by a full 11%.  It is hardly credible to look at a strongly growing Quinnipiac margin to 26% and claim that "the attacks have taken its toll" in terms of the Democratic nomination battle.  It is obvious that in that particular poll the opposite occured, that the attacks have helped Clinton against her Democratic opponents (although it stands to reason that they may have taken a toll in terms of a direct comparison between Clinton and Giuliani, as far as the Quinnipiac poll is concerned.)

As I stated in the beginning of the post, the true state of the race is in the internals, the "strong leader" questions, the Iraq, Iran, Economy, Health Care questions.  That is where you see movement and that is where you get clues of where the race is.  Clinton at 22% margin, 25% margin, who cares, really.  If Edwards and/or Obama can't make inroads in the internal polling questions who of the 3 is the "strongest leader," "the most trusted on Iraq/Iran," "best on health care," etc. it really does not matter whether a poll shows a 21% or 29% margin, or even 15%.  

I agree, however, that these next Iowa and NH polls are going to be interesting to see as for any type of movement.  Given that movement has been absent from national polling (in fact, Clinton appears to have bettered this week on internal questions of "strong leader" and "trusted on Iraq",) I doubt there will be any appreciable movement in IA and NH.  We shall see.

to Edwards with Independents..

check your newsweek poll

I think all this spin is starting to make my head spin.

Wow, Biden is ahead of Richardson now.

Mark Penn.  Ha ha ha ha ha ha

Did he also claim his numbers showed support for union busting?

As I have mentioned elsewhere, many at the time thought the 53 percent was too high and not her real number- I know one of the big Clinton supporters here said they did not believe it- I forgot who- anyway she could be losing some support but we will really need two more weeks before we know anything for sure, I think.  I don't think she has but I am willing to accept the possibility until we know for sure.  It does look like she has not picked up more support- that does seem to be the case.

This is not a great analysis. First of all Hillary's lead is still enormous in all polls. Second we need at least 4 or 5 polls to really see if there is a trend forming. This an analysis based entirely on speculation.

C'mon, enough of the spinning - especially of the poll numbers! I think tying recent poll results to last weeks debate is a fallacy! Were the poll respondents selected on the basis of having watched the debate? No! Of course not. The only relationship to the debate and the polls was all about the spin the MSM created! Let's be real, here, at least.

And I won't even get into the (fictitious) so-called gender issue! What a joke! A little mention of "the boys" at a Wellesley speech, and, suddenly she's raising the "gender issue". Frankly, I'm disgusted with Obama and Edwards for pursuing this. Hilary is not my first choice, but is it her fault that the other candidates have not caught on with the people? They have only themselves to blame!

I vote Edwards because he is the only one who seems trustworthy at this point.  He speaks from his heart and is willing to answer tough questions, unlike other candidates.