Now we know: Most Native Americans say the name of Washington, D.C.’s football team doesn’t offend them ... maybe.

The Washington Post polled 504 people who identified themselves as Native Americans, and found that nine in 10 weren’t bothered by the name the Redskins, seven in 10 said it isn’t disrespectful to Native Americans and eight in 10 wouldn’t be offended if a non-native person called them that name to their face. The Post notes that the results don’t vary all that widely from a poll conducted in 2004 by the Annenberg Public Policy Center.

However, while laying out the poll’s methodology (in great detail) and results, the folks behind the poll go a step too far by asking: “Is the survey demographically representative of the Native American population?” The answer was ... yes. Despite taking precautions to include homes with both mobile phones and land lines and to include respondents living both on reservations and off, the poll still relies heavily on the person on the other end’s identification as Native American.

“ Without [Redskins owner] Daniel Snyder or his organization even opening their mouths, the Washington Post posited that “Native Americans’ indifference could reset D.C. stadium talks.” ”

That question of identity has been a matter of debate for, among others, the Center for Indigenous Peoples Studies at California State University. After finding the Annenberg survey problematic because it relied on respondents to identify as Native American, the center conducted its own survey and found that 67% of those surveyed believe that the Washington team’s name is a racist word. It’s also become an issue for the numerous tribes and Native American activist groups that have jointly denounced the team’s name and mascot.

However, the Post seems to have a bigger plan in mind for its poll than simply addressing a name or mascot. Though never an ally to the team or its ownership — which made it somewhat of an anomaly in D.C. — the Post hasn’t been above letting owner Daniel Snyder plead his case on its pages. He’s in an interesting situation now, as the cancellation of his team’s federal trademark last year is in question after a court struck down the law that made that cancellation possible. The team now wants a divided Supreme Court to hear its case and could use all the political goodwill it can muster to make that happen.

Meanwhile, Snyder and company have made no secret about the fact that they want a new stadium to replace 19-year-old FedEx Field in Landover, Md. A Danish architect already designed a new stadium with a moat that could be built at sites in Prince George’s County, Maryland; Loudoun County, Virginia; or D.C. itself. However, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser has already made it known that she considers the team name offensive, but has wavered slightly on that stance in an effort to woo the team.

Without Snyder or his organization even opening their mouths, the Post posited that “Native Americans’ indifference” (in a poll of self-identified Native Americans that the paper itself conducted, mind you) “could reset D.C. stadium talks.” It even goes so far as to point out the fact that she “has more often said ‘many’ consider the term offensive” and that she “has also occasionally — perhaps out of habit — still uttered it.”

That’s where this absolutely stops being about names and mascots and starts being about what polls are often about: political campaigning. The Post may not be Snyder’s lap dog — isn’t the word “may” fun? — but it’s the district’s paper of record and has an interest in seeing a new stadium occupy RFK Stadium’s spot after it is vacated in 2018 and once the NFL team’s lease in Landover expires in 2027. It’s where the pens and pads drop, the pom-poms come out and the Fourth Estate suddenly plays the 12th Man. It’s a scenario we’ve witnessed in San Diego and Las Vegas, and it’s a tightrope being tread by Boston Red Sox and Fenway Sports Group owner John Henry and the staff at the Henry-owned Boston Globe.

It’s also a result that’s absolutely delighting Daniel Snyder, whose office issued a statement saying that the team was “gratified by this overwhelming support from the Native American community.” Meanwhile, members of that same Native American community let it be known that their “proud resilience does not give the NFL a license to continue marketing, promoting and profiting off a dictionary-defined racial slur — one that tells people outside of our community to view us as mascots.”

Unfortunately, that’s the point lost amid the numbers. No, there isn’t consensus on whether the name and mascot are offensive. No, there isn’t even a 90% consensus among the self-defined Native Americans the Post interviewed on the subject. But when one side is arguing about the harm caused by the name and the centuries of degradation behind it, and the other side argues that it isn’t bad enough to prevent from cashing in on a trademark or building a new stadium — likely with taxpayer dollars — there’s a divide that poll numbers can’t see and won’t be able to measure.

Knocking on doors and repeatedly asking for permission to use a racist name doesn’t make it less racist; it just makes those who oppose it less certain that their opinion matters.

Jason Notte is a freelance writer based in Portland, Ore. His writing has appeared in The New York Times, The Huffington Post and Esquire. Notte received a bachelor’s degree in journalism from the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University in 1998. Follow him on Twitter @Notteham.