The following section removed is being continually added to this article. A study conducted by the University of Washington found that Tea Party Movement supporters were statistically more likely to be racially resentful than the population as a whole. The problem is that the study is not a national study. It was specifically limited to 7 states, however is being presented as a description of the movement as a whole. This study has also been strongly criticized for being very partisan and poorly worded see second ref for example.
To fully incorporate this study would require substantial qualifiers to fully explain the methodology of the study and the limitations which would very likely provide undue weight Arzel talk , 26 May UTC.
There is no consensus for including this study; I agree with Arzel. The study was local, but the Tea Party movement is national so their results are not statistically significant.
Their methods are questionable: How did they decide which handful of states to include in the study? Also their premise is questionable. What does "racially resentful" even mean? For example, if a white firefighter was denied a promotion or a white student was rejected from medical school, on the basis of skin color euphemistically called "affirmative action", then don't they have a legitimate basis to be "racially resentful".
But does that make either of them a "racist" necessarily? So what does that have to do with the "racism" charge used by opponents against the millions of Americans participating in the Tea Party? Furthermore, the conclusions made by the study are highly subjective. They decided that disagreeing with the statement "Blacks should do the same without special favors" reflects "racial resentment". However a number of contradictory interpretations are possible. For example, couldn't a black person who thought he deserved "special favors" based upon his skin color, be deemed to be "racially resentful"?
