It seems as if John Edwards has been getting more press since he left the race than he ever did as a candidate. Much of it comes from speculation about who will receive the bulk of Edwards' supporters.

In his latest column, Paul Krugman asserts that "the working-class voters Mr. Edwards attracted have tended to favor Mrs. Clinton over Mr. Obama."

Which got me to thinking, "Do working-class voters really favor Edwards?" Yes, he ran a campaign based on an extremely populist, blue collar message. But when you look at exit poll data, that message doesn't seem to be resonating with his target audience (if, in fact, that was his target audience). In South Carolina, for example, Edwards' greatest support was from families making $200,000 or more and his lowest support came from families making under $15,000. His support seemed to steadily increase with income, in fact.

Here's how the South Carolina Edwards vote breaks down:

Under $15,000: 14%
$15,000 - $29,999: 15%
$30,000 - $49,999: 16%
$50,000 - $74,999: 22%
$75,000 - $99,999: 26%
$100,000 - $149,999: 24%
$150,000 - $199,999: NA
$200,000 or more: 29%

Clinton's support in South Carolina was relatively stable across all income groups, and Obama's was the exact opposite of Edwards. Obama drew support from 45% of voters making more than $200,000 (his lowest level), and won 59% of voters making less than $15,000 (his highest level).

The trends weren't identical, but were similar, in other early states. Edwards did better with working class voters in some other contests, as did Hillary. But Obama doesn't seem to have the problem with working class Democrats that some assume.

I'm not exactly surprised that Krugman would spout an opinion, particularly a hit on Obama, without doing research. I am surprised that other journalists have made the same assumption without looking at a lot of actual data.