Disney Hates Poor People

Newsweek didn’t ask me.

The_Orient_of_Express:

I’ll never understand the mentality that every product has to be attainable to every single person?

It’s similar to the mentality that every job has to pay a “living wage.” Whatever that is.

Mulfinator:

it doesn't look like the American people agree with election deniers.

Or taking away bodily autonomy from women.

Mulfinator:

...big wins for Democrats in statewide races...

They weren't big wins at all in most cases, which is why it's so concerning. They beat most of the election liars, but not by much. I wouldn't celebrate because they won so many individual elections by slim margins. Elections are the ultimate metric, true, and we managed to elect a fascist autocrat into the White House that incited and insurrection. Not a good look for democracy.

I have an idea for Disney's next attraction. It's called Rite of Passage, and it's a dark ride (a very dark ride). The ride entrance is right next to the main gate. As the ride progresses, you'll experience several scenes depicting a struggling lower-middle class family trying to scrape together enough money for the ultimate Disney vacation. In a shocking moment, right when they're about to hit their goal, dad loses it all on a Super Bowl bet. More trials, tribulations, triumphs and setbacks follow, until the family has finally saved enough.

The ride ends with you...entering the park.

Is that….based on a true story?

Vater:

Newsweek didn’t ask me.

Newsweek didn't ask anybody. A pollster did. :-)

Will Abigail lead people through the journey of that ride? And will there be an animatronic of Walt's ashes rolling over and over?

Expect Vater wasn't one of the 1500 people Redfield & Wilton reached out to for their survey. I wasn't either. I am amazed that anyone responds to surveys anymore. On the very rare occasion that I do, I always lie in my responses. Not a fan of pollsters.

The hardcore Disney nerds will demand a scene with Eisner, Iger, and "Paycheck" urinating on Walt's grave.

djDaemon:

Newsweek didn't ask anybody. A pollster did. :-)

Well yeah, of course, but I don't understand what, if any, point you were making.

That you or GoBucks or anyone else doesn't like or respond to pollsters doesn't mean polling is inaccurate, that we shouldn't heed the results of polls, etc.

I'm sure that sample size of less than one half of one tenth of one percent of the nation's population provides rock solid info.

Polls are accurate except when they are not. Which is often. How do you like to "heed" them given that uncertainty?

Ballot I submitted last week had 50-60 candidates/issues on it. Read everyone one. None of them asked about the 2020 election. Being a single issue voter is a luxury that doesn't interest most people or isn't one they can afford. And there are still a lot of team voters out there. Not sure how else you explain Herschel Walker getting more than one vote.

Jeff:

They weren't big wins at all in most cases, which is why it's so concerning. They beat most of the election liars, but not by much. I wouldn't celebrate because they won so many individual elections by slim margins.

If you are only looking at the margin of victory yes it is troubling. However, winning the governorship in Arizona and flipping control of the state house and state senate in Michigan are a big deal. In a vacuum it isn't. However, given very high inflation, climbing interest rates, high gas prices, and a very unpopular President, these wins buck historically trends.

I'm certainly not waving away the threat to democracy. It's still fragile. But I am more confident that we will have a democracy in 10 years than I was two weeks ago.

Jeff said - “They weren't big wins at all in most cases, which is why it's so concerning.”

Don’t pretend to be dense, you’re smarter than that. By all rights and traditions, Dems should have been destroyed by the poor economy and Bidens truly horrible approval ratings, direction of the country, etc. democrats have no business holding the senate, or as many seats as they do in the house. They’ve messed everything up pretty bad the last two years. YET, it’s exactly BECAUSE the electorate denied those republican election deniers that democrats vastly overperformed on election night. Trump and his handpicked minions turned everyone out…to vote against him. Because they’re sick of him, and the dems were the less worse choice. Most negatively partisan election in my lifetime.

I don't know if you're trying to insult me or what, but my feeling that the elections were that close concerns me. My feeling isn't up for debate. Until these crazy assholes are marginalized back into the shadows, and an overwhelming majority of people in every county recognize anti-democracy candidates as dangerous, I will be uneasy.

Vater:

I'm sure that sample size of less than one half of one tenth of one percent of the nation's population provides rock solid info.

A sample size of ~1500 has a margin of error of ~2.5% when used to represent a population of ~265 million people.

Of course results vary based on a number of variables, but polls asking about the legitimacy of the 2020 election all point in the same direction - about 30-40% of people asked believe the 2020 election was fraudulent. And worse, roughly 60-70% of Republican voters share that delusion.

Morning Consult found only 32% of Republicans believe the 2020 election was legitimate.

UMass Amherst found 33% believed it not to be legitimate.

Survey USA found 78% of Republican likely voters would be as likely or more likely to support a candidate who believes the election was "stolen" from Trump.

WaPo found 29% believe the election was illegitimate.

Quinnipiac found 34% believed the election illegitimate in December 2020, though to be fair that number dropped to "only" 29% 6 months later, but 66% of Republican voters maintained that view.

These are all good pollsters, and when you have multiple good pollsters with multiple polls all pointing in the same direction, it's rock solid info regardless of whether or not you or GoBucks were personally polled on the topic.

And again, the reflexive hand waving away of this stuff is dangerous. It's how we ended up with a reality TV host using his elected position to incite a deadly attack on the United States Congress with the goal of overturning an election he lost. I figured after that domestic terrorist attack people wouldn't be so quick to dismiss or rationalize this stuff away, but here we are.

So a survey if 1500 retirement home residents in Florida and one of 1500 UAW members in Michigan have a 2.5% margin of error? Of course they don't. So having a statistically relevant sample size is just part of the equation. You also need a valid sample and the smaller the sample is, the greater the risk of it being not valid and of the magnitude of any errors in it. Not only location but method and timing can impact samples as well.

As I noted, I am not a fan of polls. But I work with people who live in the political sphere who spend a lot of time with polls. One issue with non-responders from what I hear is that they are tough to model/sample. And an increasing number of them makes polling more expensive. Tough to know if the non-responders are adequately represented in the group of responders. If its a cross section of the population as a whole that doesn't respond and all in equal numbers/percentages, less of an issue. But from what I have seen, different groups of people have different response rates so sampling the non-responders is a big challenge.

whether or not you or GoBucks were personally polled on the topic

Total facepalm.

And again, the reflexive hand waving away of this stuff is dangerous. It's how we ended up with a reality TV host using his elected position to incite a deadly attack on the United States Congress with the goal of overturning an election he lost.

So not punishing/banishing/imprisoning/executing/taking away the right to vote/ect 2020 election deniers is the reason for the results of the 2016 election? Was there a flux capacitor involved? lol

Comedians, sports stars, actors and wrestlers have been elected to national office/governorships. Reality TV host was the line that was crossed?

For the 2004 election, 31 democrats voted in favor of an objection to the certification of Ohio's votes. 132 House members didn't vote (presumably at least some of them felt the same but didn't want to go on the record). Kerry would have been president had he won Ohio. Were the objectors election deniers? Trying to overturn an election? From what I understand about 1/3rd of those who objected will be part of the new Congress in January 2023.

https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/2004#:~:text=raised%20ob...entatives.

https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=239735&page=1

Many people never accepted the results of the 2000 election. Or the 2016 election. Election deniers as well? Maybe there is a distinction for those who advocated violence as part of their objections? If that is the case, shouldn't the sacrosanct polls have asked about election deniers who advocate for violence? Think the results would have been the same?

Maybe its also a matter of the election being denied.

I figured after that domestic terrorist attack people wouldn't be so quick to dismiss or rationalize this stuff away, but here we are.

Elections are nuanced. Would be easier if they weren't though.

Let's stop pretending that everyone that voted for a Republican who questioned the 2020 election was voting for authoritarianism. To quote James Carville "It's the economy, stupid". By most metrics the economy is not great. It's not a surprise that the party who is in control of Congress and the White House would have people vote against them during a likely recession.

Let's also not forget that the DNC and its affiliates pumped tons of money into Republican primaries to prop up extreme candidates. It's a strategy that likely worked as they weren't completely routed, but it is a dangerous game.

If you don't vote against fascism, and accept the dismantling of democracy, the economy is going to be the least of your worries.

And while the stock market has taken a dump this year, and inflation is high, the economy is actually not as bad as people imagine that it is. GDP was up in the third quarter, the economy is still adding jobs and unemployment is at historic lows. The indicators seem to contradict each other, but there's no room for nuance for willfully ignorant people that believe a cabal of Satan worshiping child molesters are conspiring to take your guns.

I agree with you. But people vote with their pocketbooks. When prices are high at the gas station (what are they these days anyway?) and the grocery store they tend to vote against those in power. The Democrats were fortunate that it was a red trickle and not a red wave. Regardless the Republican house leadership has already demonstrated that they have no answers. Their solution to inflation and health care costs is to find out what is on Hunter Biden's laptop.