If you wish to focus only on the Twitter poll, then there is little more I can offer to it in context other than it is the result of something else that had been building for a while. Granted as you said the data is very limited and subject to the whims of people trolling it for results because of the current situation of "It's okay to be white." and that the person posing it this time might make for an easy or desirable target. Regardless, what I am getting to is this Twitter poll by itself is rather boring and is only a piece of the far, far larger image critical to understanding why it manifest at all, [@Dynamo Frokane]. The context of the environment and the overall tale being weaved is far more pressing and important; harping on this one note is not going to legitimately reveal anything to us we cannot already derive from conjecture, or better without hypothesizing, at its purest face value.

If we took it as an honest representation, it really displays to us nothing as it shows us neither the realistic demographics of who it is intended for in the United States' populace and its root purpose. As a statement, most distilled and purest, there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying "It's okay to be white." or phrasing that same statement as an inquiry. Even in contrast to other racial rallying cries as the oft stereotyped "Black Power" or "Mexican Pride", it is a very inane, meek thing to say. So uncontroversial is it that it is a laughable remark, as it was partially intended to be, but since we are forced to stick to the poll we will continue. As a representation of the population, we are all aware there are pools of personalities who take these things seriously, but the proportions they are blown up to varies.

Sure there is an expectation a person in the white nationalist community is going to be saying "It's okay to be white.", but that is not where this content has spread to, again why it is utterly imperative to understand where this originated from and how it has spread. Regardless, this is not controversial in itself either, being that this is not even a matter of supposed superiority; you are legitimately in receipt of a statement that, for lack of better words, really means nothing. You could cite that the person saying it means other things, but why would they just not say those things instead? They make for a very, very poor white nationalist if the best they can do is say "It's okay to be white.".

Proceeding, an interesting point you make is people purposefully voting "No." to spite the person in question unwittingly add more fuel to the fire of the opposition's argument in this case. By not agreeing to it, they have only proven at large - this was notable in the media I referred to when this picked up some weeks ago - they are making fools of themselves. The only credible answer is "Yes." regardless of personal bias, but being likely incomplete people, their hatred for someone is so strong that they are willing to ignore what is an acceptable statement. Now of course trolling might make this worse, to help further their goals of spreading this message and creating more controversy, but even then, what of it? In this vacuum we find ourselves in, that really would mean nothing in of itself, especially in this day and age where data like this is constantly and readily manipulated, especially when motives are in mind.

I suppose the last of my points about it without deviating from just the poll, is that it has no effect. The person in question hasn't the reach or power to be that influential or important, a piece of the puzzle undoubtedly, but this is not on the level of other actions - some even official - we have seen in the past few years.