Perhaps I can provide a slightly different perspective on all of this. As it happens, I've been doing performance consulting for tribal gaming in California for about a year now. I'm also actively involved in facilitating training on behalf of the California Council on Problem Gambling. As a result, I've needed to develop some expertise in this topic. Additionally, I work closely with a large casino corporation based in Las Vegas. Please note that the majority of my gaming knowledge is centered around California and Nevada, so much of this will still be speculation. I'm largely unfamiliar with gaming laws in Florida.
Having said that, I can say with certainty that there are only two possible scenarios in which this idea could even legally take place. The first scenario would be if gambling is even legal in the state of Florida. Aside from riverboats and Indian gaming, it isn't, so that's pretty much a moot point. The second scenario would be if Disney's unique city government agreement with Florida allows for gaming to legally take place. Considering the agreement with Florida was made when Walt was still alive, I seriously doubt it included any discussions on allowing gambling. Walt was a visionary, but everything I've read about him (and I've read a LOT about him) leaves me believing that he would never have foreseen the need to allow gambling. The right to build a nuclear reactor is generally cited as the most "controversial" issue in this story. If gambling had been part of the agreement, I tend to think we would have heard or read about it.
A third possibility, which was suggested in an earlier post, is not something that would ever happen. Someone suggested that Disney could join forces with some Florida Indian tribe and use their name to make it legal (I'm paraphrasing, but I believe I've captured the gist of it). This suggestion illustrates a common misconception about Indian gaming. There is a mistaken belief that tribes can simply "shop around" for land anywhere they want, purchase it, and then it suddenly and miraculously becomes Indian land, thus making a casino immediately legal. It doesn't work that way. Likewise, Indian tribes can't just simply join forces with a company and build a casino on that company's property. This misconception stems from the fact that many Indian casinos are managed by companies other than the tribes themselves (generally, casino companies). But the land those casinos are on is either owned by the tribe, or placed in trust for the tribe by the U.S. Department of Interior.
As far as the argument that the existence of a casino on Disney property would be "harmless" as long as it was "well hidden", this is technically true. However, assuming Florida Indian gaming compacts are similar to those here in California, it would have to be EXTREMELY well hidden. In California, laws are very strict in terms of casinos and their proximity to other places where minors have access. For example, no Indian casinos in California can be within a certain square mileage of schools. I would imagine this law (or one similar to it) exists in Florida gaming compacts as well.
Lastly, casinos and family oriented destinations have been proven not to mix. As was stated earlier in this thread, Vegas learned this the hard way in the 90's. Hundreds of millions were spent trying to lure people with families into Vegas, and several casino companies took some pretty hefty financial hits as a result. The city itself also felt the financial impact. Now, Vegas is working on reinventing itself as an "adult" playground (hence the ads with the tagline, "Vegas...What happens here stays here.") I don't think Disney would be so unwise as to attempt this marketing fiasco. I can't imagine why exit surveys were being done to measure the level of potential interest, but my guess is that the result of those surveys probably didn't indicate a high degree of interest. Even though it's true that Disney isn't "only for families", it's still pretty clearly a family-oriented destination.
