No words are ascribed to anyone, so you're off base there. It's just an attempt to analyze the behavior of a group of people by seeking underlying themes and rationales, like millions of other such explanations out there.

You can't read those words up there? Literally the entire diatribe is ascribing motivations, internal dialogs, ideas, words and actions to entire groups of people you don't likely know.

It doesn't ascribe words to anyone. For the rest, yes, that's what political analysis is. Do you find all political commentary illegitimate or just the stuff you don't like?

"Putting words in someone's mouth" is different. It means ascribing a quote to them that they didn't actually say. It doesn't cover all speculation about what people think.

Pedantry - claiming ideas in other's heads is not much different.. That kind of 'political analysis' is similar to playground taunting - "you so stupid, you go gaa gaa gaa!" while making faces. Too shallow, broad and general to be useful as anything but rationalization.

Feel free to write your own analysis of the original question!