But I have "done the research"--that's why I don't think the conclusion is solid. I linked you to one example last time, and even your own link admits, "There are, of course, many reasons beyond racism that respondents could disapprove of Obama, including partisanship and ideological differences." before deciding that it's too big a coincidence despite presenting no additional evidence.

Furthermore, the article you link documents differences in attitude: "card-carrying Tea Partiers reject [...] vehemently the accusations of racism. That rejection reflects tension between the (purist) core and the (racist) periphery of the movement." This is a direct repudiation of your own statement that I objected to, which was, "The entire “Tea Party” movement began following Barack Obama’s first presidential inauguration (in January 2009). That is a FACT and it was NOT an accident of circumstance. What it was, was cause and effect. It was a direct response to a Black man and his Brown family unexpectedly being elected"

Also, in contrast to your claim, "Majority America wasn’t ready. Was. Not. Ready.", the article that you chose for support paints a different picture: "The election of the first African-American president highlighted the country’s progress toward racial equality, which remains anathema to a minority of white voters." (emphasis mine).

That old-fashioned racists--those with strong personal racial bigotry who would happily tell you so if there wasn't an extreme social prohibition against it--did not like Obama because of his race is no surprise. That this was responsible for the Tea Party, however, seems unfounded. That they seem to have ended up preferentially in the Tea Party is worth being aware of; it's a reason to be especially skeptical of Tea Party policies since the usual right-wing tactic of excusing heartlessness as promoting responsibility is likely mixed with a heavier dose than usual of racial favoritism. But again, you have to weigh this against the success of people like Tim Scott, Herman Cain, Alan West, Jenean Hampton, etc.. It's true that the Tea Party is overwhelmingly white and male, but then so is the Republican Party, and the Tea Party as a whole has been happy to endorse non-white candidates who align well with the Tea Party political ideology.

The U.S. was ready for Obama. The white majority was almost entirely ready. There was still a racist portion who wasn't, yes, but they weren't the founders of the Tea Party, and they weren't the thought leaders, and while they did bolster its reach by preferentially supporting it (and arguably over time shifted what was considered acceptable), the way you're talking about it just doesn't seem supported by any evidence I've found.

Including the evidence you provided in support.

There is a related, considerably toned-town point that probably is supportable (e.g. using Michael Tessler's analysis of correlation between opposition to interracial marriage--which, incidentally, is tiny had has been continually growing smaller: https://www.axios.com/2022/09/07/approval-of-interracial-marriage-america--and political views). You can make a case for hardening attitudes and political polarization amongst the most racist fringe, and the timing of that is right to correspond to Obama.

But the kind of sweeping statements you've made seem to go well beyond the actual state of affairs.