At the Financial Post, Lawrence Solomon unleashes an attack on Donald Trump supporters:

Trump's victim voters are disproportionately males, poorly educated, and poorly remunerated in their employment, if they're employed at all. Many of the counties Trump has carried in his primary victories are characterized by closed factories and despairing communities where opioid addiction and disability claims have been rising while male life expectancy has been falling.

Sounds like something Kevin Williamson wrote at National Review.

Conveniently, The Economist has recently analyzed who actually is voting for Trump, and -- as expected -- the reality doesn't fit the claims above:

Most analysis of Donald Trump's support in the primary elections has focused on his appeal to poorer, working-class white voters, who are assumed to have lost the most to globalisation and are more open to his particular brand of populist politics. But his victory in the New York Republican primary on April 19th underscored his wider support across the party's base. Mr Trump took 61% of the vote overall (the first time he has gained over 50%) winning across all demographic groups. That was to be expected in his home state. However, averaging out his support in all state primaries (where exit polling is available) shows that richer and better educated voters form as big a part of Mr Trump's support base as those at the lower end of the income and education scales.

Well, that's an inconvenient truth for the Financial Post.

The Economist goes on to analyze Trump's support in greater detail based on income and education, and concludes that "Mr. Trump is a broadly appealing fellow after all."