As is his custom, Trump ignored the substance of the editorial and responded with a fury of mostly subjective, ad hominem attacks: McQuaid was the "stinky," "low-life" leader of a "failing" publication.
But the GOP front-runner ventured into fact-checkable territory Tuesday with a tweet about the Union Leader's circulation.
By "10," I assume Trump meant 10,000. I mean, he wouldn't claim something as outlandish as a readership of 10 people for the Granite State's leading paper. Right?
But even if we grant Trump the benefit of the doubt and go with the Twitter short-hand theory, 10,000 seems really low. And sure enough, Trump is way off -- by like 258 percent. At least.
According to the Alliance for Audited Media, the official score-keeper on such matters, the Union Leader's average weekday circulation in 2015 was 35,831. On Sundays, it was 47,803.
The paper's circulation figures are down -- as are most publications' these days -- so Trump is right about the trend, I suppose. In 2010, the Union Leader's circulation was 49,332 on weekdays and 65,767 on Sundays. In 2005, the figures were 59,232 and 79,326, respectively.
Still, Trump's assertion that the Union Leader is barely cracking five figures isn't even in the ballpark. Where did he come up with such a number? His campaign did not respond to The Fix's inquiry.
This was McQuaid's response, via email: "As with just about everything else he has said/tweeted/belched about the New Hampshire Union Leader and me since we dared call him out, Trump is lying about something that is, as you note, easily verified."
In the eyes of Trump supporters, the media isn't a very sympathetic victim, so this bit of fiction about the Union Leader probably won't resonate. But it's part of a pattern -- a willful disregard of basic facts -- that's worth keeping in mind when you paint the picture of the Trump campaign.