What the survey does suggest is a lot of people who used "non-conservative" languages in the past are now using Clojure. Maybe they all decided they wanted a "conservative" language, or maybe they think Clojure is "non-conservative".
Or maybe these labels don't have much meaning after all.
I've never used Haskell, so I can't speak the specifics of the observation. But I don't believe much can be inferred from the observation alone.
And yet, that is exactly the basis for Yegge's point: attributing a philosophical label based on a perceived (and incorrect) background for a group. Goose, gander. Kettle, pot.
To me the survey suggests that the division between camp A and camp B is immaterial to the decision to use the language. Obviously the designers think the language is worthwhile, otherwise they wouldn't have made it. Obviously the users think the language is worthwhile, otherwise they wouldn't use it.
Since both find value in the language, this political/conservative spectrum is about as valuable as judging physical fitness by hair color.