(empirical) Differences Between Democrats And Republicans

[tosacco]

I know this will most likely get turned into another shit-slinging thread unfortunately. Regardless, I found this research to be pretty interesting, informative, and worth passing along.

Why Democrats and Republicans don t understand each other - Vox

 

[Pennywise]

They aren't all that much different anymore. Most of them are career political piggies who relish in controlling our lives while getting filthy rich through corrupt connections.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Democrats are more focused on making policy to appease their various social groups and Republicans are more focused on fighting both new and existing policy because smaller government is the core philosophical commitment of their base.

Except that isn't entirely true. Republicans face the same problem of pandering to special interests that democrats do. The difference is in the special interest pandering rather than whether or not one does and one doesn't.

But when you look at the base of voters instead of of the actual politicians (career) who supposedly represent the base, you see that the base does want to limit government, repeal certain laws and generally bring about the ideological stance of limited governance from the central authority aspect.

All in all, both party politicians engage in special interest group law formation and often hand the detail creation to the interest group (see ACA law, or see Medicare part D)

 

[Harry Dresden]

both parties suck.....but you will never see the diehard party people even consider that their party sucks...

 

[Moonglow]

me so horny, so please refrain from using suck or sucking as a euphemism..
Both parties do vacuum...

 

[Harry Dresden]

me so horny, so please refrain from using suck or sucking as a euphemism..
Both parties do vacuum...

sounds like a personal problem.......Spoony i hear this babe is in your neighborhood right now looking for some unadulterated sex....

 

[Mad Scientist]

I don't know if that's Meth Addiction, a Lifetime of Smoking or just bad Genetics!

 

[ShackledNation]

Looks like an interesting read. It is interesting that significantly more Americans describe themselves as conservative than liberal, but a fair number more describe themselves as Democrat than Republican.

The parties both ultimately move the U.S. in the same direction, except in the rare case where someone in either party makes a stand and manages to get enough popular backing to actually change something.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I don't know if that's Meth Addiction, a Lifetime of Smoking or just bad Genetics!

and she is only 33.....

 

[Rikurzhen]

I know this will most likely get turned into another shit-slinging thread unfortunately. Regardless, I found this research to be pretty interesting, informative, and worth passing along.

Why Democrats and Republicans don t understand each other - Vox

Why does anyone read anything that Ezra Klein writes and believe it to be insightful? Ok, I'm going to write this as I work my way through his article.

So let's restate: Democrats are more focused on making policy to appease their various interest groups and Republicans are more focused on proving their commitment to the small-government philosophy that unites base
​

Klein restates the Republican position to add clarity for the reading audience but doesn't do the same for the Democratic position because it would be too insulting to shine clarity on what the Democrats are about. They're not focused on making policy to appease their various interest groups, rather they're focused on paying off their various interests groups. They take from the whole and redistribute or favor the faction. That's the game. Once we understand that then we also get a clearer overall picture.

This is an old finding in American politics, but a powerful one. More Americans consistently identify as conservative than liberal. At the same time more Americans consistently identify as Democrats than as Republicans.

On its face, this presents a puzzle: how can conservatism be the more popular ideology even as the Democrats are the more popular party?
​

There's nothing odd about this at all. Liberals are not popular anywhere in the world, so it's no surprise that the same holds true in America. So why the disconnect between liberalism and Democratic Party support? Payoffs. The core mission of the Democrats is to funnel favors or wealth to the groups that support them at the expense of general society. This is especially true of race/ethnic groups who support the Democrats. Look at Asian Americans. A very wealthy group who SHOULD be aligned with the Republicans on political principles. Also, look at how Asians conduct their private lives - high rates of marriage, low rates of criminality, low rates of out of wedlock births, etc they live like Fundamentalist Christians. So why are they overwhelmingly Democrats? Because they get Asian minority small business favoritism when the do any work for government, they get the benefit of hiring quotas, in other words, Democrats funnel money into their pockets where Republicans are opposed to doing that.

Look at how Republicans draw support from the Core of America while Democrats draw from the Fringes.

What's remarkable is that held true even when Republicans controlled the White House. "Though they voiced strong disapproval of Bush, Democrats still expressed a preference for compromise in government — a tendency that has carried over to the Obama era," write Grossmann and Hopkins. "Republicans have been consistent in their elevation of principle over moderation, regardless of which party is in power."​

What this explanation doesn't account for are the particulars of compromise. Here is what likely comes to mind as an example of how Democrats and Republicans could compromise. Two siblings want to buy a anniversary gift for their parents. One sibling wants to spend $40 and the other $60 and they argue. Their uncle proposes a centrist position of $50 and they both compromise a bit and agree. So what's wrong with that process extended up to Congress? Nothing, that's the way that compromise should work.

What happens though if the issue is a bit more sticky? Two siblings want to buy an ice cream sundae to share. One sibling wants a strawberry sundae but the other sibling wants a horse-shit sundae. This utterly repulses the other sibling. The uncle steps in and suggests a centrist position of a negotiated settlement, a horseshit-strawberry sundae. The sibling who favored the horseshit flavor gets what he wants but the one who wanted the strawberry sundae is totally disgusted and gets absolutely no benefit whatsoever from the centrist compromise. In this type of scenario there is no benefit at all for Republicans to compromise with Democrats and there is actually more benefit to not eating a sundae than there is to eating a horseshit-strawberry sundae compromise.

Here's the non-colorful example. One party holds that the government has no business whatsoever in redistributing income from one individual to another. Zilch. There is no meeting in middle ground with an opponent who believes that the government should be aggressive in redistributing income to equalize outcomes. Any meeting in the middle involves forcing the individualists to eat a strawberry-horseshit sundae. Furthermore, once a compromise is reached, then all future negotiations which "meet in the middle" move the middle more and more towards the Democratic position and further and further away from the Republican position of "don't violate this principle."

To get to the specific, look at where each party draws support. The Democrats can identify narrow groups and funnel favors/resources to them which come out of the hide of general society. Republicans have a wider overlap with general society and not so much with specific interest groups, so when it comes time to compromise, Republican refusal to bend to special interests protects the voiceless majority at the expense of the Democrat's loud and focused minority. So we should be wary in reaching the conclusion that negotiation is always in the nation's best interests, it's not, it's only in the best interests of the political party which has the structural advantage in the negotiation, which could be either Democrats or Republicans depending on the issue. If the issue was rolling back abortion rights or gay marriage, Democrats would be looking at that like a horseshit sundae offer - no negotiation on what are seen as bedrock principles. Any chipping away on either issue would please Republicans, right? Then next go-around, if the solution was found in the middle ground, the overall position would slide even closer to Republican positions.

Now because the Republicans are more focused on "philosophy" they're going to be more frequently running into Democrats offering them "horseshit" than vice versa. This isn't rocket science, but you see how it doesn't paint Democrats in a flattering light and that's why Klein either doesn't realize this or why he chooses not to offend his audience of liberals.

On to Point #3. Pretty solid here, good for him. Notice how it ties in with what I've written above.


On to Point #4:

"Democrats and liberals are more likely to focus on policymaking because any change that occurs is much more likely to be liberal than conservative. New policies usually expand the scope of government responsibility, funding, or regulation. ​

Back to the horseshit sundae example. Notice how once a conservative principle is abandoned, the subsequent compromise ALWAYS move in the direction AWAY from the principle. This is why Democrats write more policies. They're juggling a lot of competing interest groups. How do you reconcile the interests of the "Right to Die" euthanasia advocates with the interests of the various "Disability Groups" who oppose euthanasia legislation because it most directly endangers them? Now you need a plethora of policies to put the thread through the narrow eye of the needle to satisfy both groups. As noted in Point #3, when there are a lot of groups, there are a lot of interconnections between the groups, and as noted earlier Democrats take from society and give to the special interests, but when they give a benefit to one special interest it's also quite likely that they harm a different special interest, in addition to broader society, and so they need to craft all sorts of legislation to iron out the differences between groups within their coalition.

The cleanest way to shrink the size of government is to repeal laws and regulations. But it doesn't happen very often. In the American political system, Grossmann says, "it's hard to pass anything, but it's particularly hard to repeal a law that already exists." Systematic analyses show it's rare for laws to be repealed wholesale. "That creates perpetual disappointment among the Republican base," Grossmann continues. "They correctly perceive that their party does not succeed in enacting their professed ideology."​

Good, but this doesn't go far enough. The reason laws don't get repealed is because each law has a very specific base of proponents who are very vocal in protecting the law and will fight more for keeping the law than will the general society which doesn't care so much about each specific law. Society as a whole is not supportive of Affirmative Action but blacks and Hispanics depend on it, so they'll go to the mat to defend it whereas general society won't man up the barricades to overturn the system.

Republicans are uncompromising because compromise tends to expand the scope of government. Democrats are willing to make deep concessions because policy moves in a generally liberal direction.​

This is just restating my horseshit-strawberry sundae example.

Republicans have a clearer message about government because their message about government is fundamentally popular. Democrats talk more about policy because what they have to say about policy is fundamentally popular.
​

People like the philosophy of Republicans but others like the payoffs they get from the Democrats. No big surprise.

 

[Darkwind]

me so horny, so please refrain from using suck or sucking as a euphemism..
Both parties do vacuum...

sounds like a personal problem.......Spoony i hear this babe is in your neighborhood right now looking for some unadulterated sex....

View attachment 31986

Didn't I see her on Broadway lugging a Kirby?

 

[jasonnfree]

I know this will most likely get turned into another shit-slinging thread unfortunately. Regardless, I found this research to be pretty interesting, informative, and worth passing along.

Why Democrats and Republicans don t understand each other - Vox

Why does anyone read anything that Ezra Klein writes and believe it to be insightful? Ok, I'm going to write this as I work my way through his article.

So let's restate: Democrats are more focused on making policy to appease their various interest groups and Republicans are more focused on proving their commitment to the small-government philosophy that unites base
​

Klein restates the Republican position to add clarity for the reading audience but doesn't do the same for the Democratic position because it would be too insulting to shine clarity on what the Democrats are about. They're not focused on making policy to appease their various interest groups, rather they're focused on paying off their various interests groups. They take from the whole and redistribute or favor the faction. That's the game. Once we understand that then we also get a clearer overall picture.

This is an old finding in American politics, but a powerful one. More Americans consistently identify as conservative than liberal. At the same time more Americans consistently identify as Democrats than as Republicans.

On its face, this presents a puzzle: how can conservatism be the more popular ideology even as the Democrats are the more popular party?
​

There's nothing odd about this at all. Liberals are not popular anywhere in the world, so it's no surprise that the same holds true in America. So why the disconnect between liberalism and Democratic Party support? Payoffs. The core mission of the Democrats is to funnel favors or wealth to the groups that support them at the expense of general society. This is especially true of race/ethnic groups who support the Democrats. Look at Asian Americans. A very wealthy group who SHOULD be aligned with the Republicans on political principles. Also, look at how Asians conduct their private lives - high rates of marriage, low rates of criminality, low rates of out of wedlock births, etc they live like Fundamentalist Christians. So why are they overwhelmingly Democrats? Because they get Asian minority small business favoritism when the do any work for government, they get the benefit of hiring quotas, in other words, Democrats funnel money into their pockets where Republicans are opposed to doing that.

Look at how Republicans draw support from the Core of America while Democrats draw from the Fringes.

What's remarkable is that held true even when Republicans controlled the White House. "Though they voiced strong disapproval of Bush, Democrats still expressed a preference for compromise in government — a tendency that has carried over to the Obama era," write Grossmann and Hopkins. "Republicans have been consistent in their elevation of principle over moderation, regardless of which party is in power."​

What this explanation doesn't account for are the particulars of compromise. Here is what likely comes to mind as an example of how Democrats and Republicans could compromise. Two siblings want to buy a anniversary gift for their parents. One sibling wants to spend $40 and the other $60 and they argue. Their uncle proposes a centrist position of $50 and they both compromise a bit and agree. So what's wrong with that process extended up to Congress? Nothing, that's the way that compromise should work.

What happens though if the issue is a bit more sticky? Two siblings want to buy an ice cream sundae to share. One sibling wants a strawberry sundae but the other sibling wants a horse-shit sundae. This utterly repulses the other sibling. The uncle steps in and suggests a centrist position of a negotiated settlement, a horseshit-strawberry sundae. The sibling who favored the horseshit flavor gets what he wants but the one who wanted the strawberry sundae is totally disgusted and gets absolutely no benefit whatsoever from the centrist compromise. In this type of scenario there is no benefit at all for Republicans to compromise with Democrats and there is actually more benefit to not eating a sundae than there is to eating a horseshit-strawberry sundae compromise.

Here's the non-colorful example. One party holds that the government has no business whatsoever in redistributing income from one individual to another. Zilch. There is no meeting in middle ground with an opponent who believes that the government should be aggressive in redistributing income to equalize outcomes. Any meeting in the middle involves forcing the individualists to eat a strawberry-horseshit sundae. Furthermore, once a compromise is reached, then all future negotiations which "meet in the middle" move the middle more and more towards the Democratic position and further and further away from the Republican position of "don't violate this principle."

To get to the specific, look at where each party draws support. The Democrats can identify narrow groups and funnel favors/resources to them which come out of the hide of general society. Republicans have a wider overlap with general society and not so much with specific interest groups, so when it comes time to compromise, Republican refusal to bend to special interests protects the voiceless majority at the expense of the Democrat's loud and focused minority. So we should be wary in reaching the conclusion that negotiation is always in the nation's best interests, it's not, it's only in the best interests of the political party which has the structural advantage in the negotiation, which could be either Democrats or Republicans depending on the issue. If the issue was rolling back abortion rights or gay marriage, Democrats would be looking at that like a horseshit sundae offer - no negotiation on what are seen as bedrock principles. Any chipping away on either issue would please Republicans, right? Then next go-around, if the solution was found in the middle ground, the overall position would slide even closer to Republican positions.

Now because the Republicans are more focused on "philosophy" they're going to be more frequently running into Democrats offering them "horseshit" than vice versa. This isn't rocket science, but you see how it doesn't paint Democrats in a flattering light and that's why Klein either doesn't realize this or why he chooses not to offend his audience of liberals.

On to Point #3. Pretty solid here, good for him. Notice how it ties in with what I've written above.


On to Point #4:

"Democrats and liberals are more likely to focus on policymaking because any change that occurs is much more likely to be liberal than conservative. New policies usually expand the scope of government responsibility, funding, or regulation. ​

Back to the horseshit sundae example. Notice how once a conservative principle is abandoned, the subsequent compromise ALWAYS move in the direction AWAY from the principle. This is why Democrats write more policies. They're juggling a lot of competing interest groups. How do you reconcile the interests of the "Right to Die" euthanasia advocates with the interests of the various "Disability Groups" who oppose euthanasia legislation because it most directly endangers them? Now you need a plethora of policies to put the thread through the narrow eye of the needle to satisfy both groups. As noted in Point #3, when there are a lot of groups, there are a lot of interconnections between the groups, and as noted earlier Democrats take from society and give to the special interests, but when they give a benefit to one special interest it's also quite likely that they harm a different special interest, in addition to broader society, and so they need to craft all sorts of legislation to iron out the differences between groups within their coalition.

The cleanest way to shrink the size of government is to repeal laws and regulations. But it doesn't happen very often. In the American political system, Grossmann says, "it's hard to pass anything, but it's particularly hard to repeal a law that already exists." Systematic analyses show it's rare for laws to be repealed wholesale. "That creates perpetual disappointment among the Republican base," Grossmann continues. "They correctly perceive that their party does not succeed in enacting their professed ideology."​

Good, but this doesn't go far enough. The reason laws don't get repealed is because each law has a very specific base of proponents who are very vocal in protecting the law and will fight more for keeping the law than will the general society which doesn't care so much about each specific law. Society as a whole is not supportive of Affirmative Action but blacks and Hispanics depend on it, so they'll go to the mat to defend it whereas general society won't man up the barricades to overturn the system.

Republicans are uncompromising because compromise tends to expand the scope of government. Democrats are willing to make deep concessions because policy moves in a generally liberal direction.​

This is just restating my horseshit-strawberry sundae example.

Republicans have a clearer message about government because their message about government is fundamentally popular. Democrats talk more about policy because what they have to say about policy is fundamentally popular.
​

People like the philosophy of Republicans but others like the payoffs they get from the Democrats. No big surprise.

So I will focus on one thing you said. " Liberals are not popular anywhere in the world." Anything to back this statement up? Most advanced countries have policies that are more liberal than Americans have. Most of these countries have national health care, are more heavily unionized, and some in scandinavia have nationalized their oil resources to provide for education and other social programs. Germany is heavily into solar power. I've read that in Germany, union members sit on meetings with board of directors of corporations. Anyway, any proof to what you said about liberals not being popular anywhere in the world?

 

[Rikurzhen]

So I will focus on one thing you said. " Liberals are not popular anywhere in the world." Anything to back this statement up? Most advanced countries have policies that are more liberal than Americans have.

It's the same dynamic everywhere. Support for goodies/payoffs is not the same thing as support for liberal way of seeing the world.

Most of these countries have national health care, are more heavily unionized, and some in scandinavia have nationalized their oil resources to provide for education and other social programs.

What you're observing is "ethnic solidarity" not liberalism. I'm a pretty hard-core conservative, but if you could ethically cleanse America back to 1950s demography I'd be on-board with a national health care system because I'd believe the following "there but for the grace of god go I, so I should extend my hand and help" and that's not liberalism, that's ethnic solidarity. Here in America when I look at black and Hispanic social dysfunction and culture, the last thing that comes to mind is "there but for the grace of god go I." I don't share enough common points of interest with those communities to want to join with them. Secondly, in those ethnically homogeneous societies the legitimacy of social sharing is bought with cultural expectations - any one of the people there could find themselves out of work or on welfare and because one believes that it could happen to anyone they believe that it could also happen to them. Here in America that's not the situation on the ground, when we look we see a "them" being the main beneficiaries and an "us" being them main funders and so support for such systems is weak.

What I'm talking about is better explained by this article:

A bleak picture of the corrosive effects of ethnic diversity has been revealed in research by Harvard University’s Robert Putnam, one of the world’s most influential political scientists.

His research shows that the more diverse a community is, the less likely its inhabitants are to trust anyone – from their next-door neighbour to the mayor. . . .

The core message of the research was that, “in the presence of diversity, we hunker down”, he said. “We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.”
​

And this analysis which ran in The Guardian:

But as Britain becomes more diverse that common culture is being eroded.

And therein lies one of the central dilemmas of political life in developed societies: sharing and solidarity can conflict with diversity. This is an especially acute dilemma for progressives who want plenty of both solidarity (high social cohesion and generous welfare paid out of a progressive tax system) and diversity (equal respect for a wide range of peoples, values and ways of life). The tension between the two values is a reminder that serious politics is about trade-offs. It also suggests that the left's recent love affair with diversity may come at the expense of the values and even the people that it once championed.

It was the Conservative politician David Willetts who drew my attention to the "progressive dilemma". Speaking at a roundtable on welfare reform, he said: "The basis on which you can extract large sums of money in tax and pay it out in benefits is that most people think the recipients are people like themselves, facing difficulties that they themselves could face. If values become more diverse, if lifestyles become more differentiated, then it becomes more difficult to sustain the legitimacy of a universal risk-pooling welfare state. People ask: 'Why should I pay for them when they are doing things that I wouldn't do?' This is America versus Sweden. You can have a Swedish welfare state provided that you are a homogeneous society with intensely shared values. In the United States you have a very diverse, individualistic society where people feel fewer obligations to fellow citizens. Progressives want diversity, but they thereby undermine part of the moral consensus on which a large welfare state rests." . . .

Moreover, modern liberal societies cannot be based on a simple assertion of group identity - the very idea of the rule of law, of equal legal treatment for everyone regardless of religion, wealth, gender or ethnicity, conflicts with it. On the other hand, if you deny the assumption that humans are social, group-based primates with constraints, however imprecise, on their willingness to share, you find yourself having to defend some implausible positions: for example, that we should spend as much on development aid as on the NHS, or that Britain should have no immigration controls at all. The implicit "calculus of affinity" in media reporting of disasters is easily mocked - two dead Britons will get the same space as 200 Spaniards or 2,000 Somalis. Yet every day we make similar calculations in the distribution of our own resources. Even a well-off, liberal-minded Briton who already donates to charities will spend, say, £200 on a child's birthday party, knowing that such money could, in the right hands, save the life of a child in the third world. The extent of our obligation to those to whom we are not connected through either kinship or citizenship is in part a purely private, charitable decision. . . .

Yet it is also true that Scandinavian countries with the biggest welfare states have been the most socially and ethnically homogeneous states in the west. By the same token, the welfare state has always been weaker in the individualistic, ethnically divided US compared with more homogeneous Europe. And the three bursts of welfarist legislation that the US did see - Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, Harry Truman's Fair Deal and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society - came during the long pause in mass immigration between the first world war and 1968. . . .

In their 2001 Harvard Institute of Economic Research paper "Why Doesn't the US Have a European-style Welfare State?", Alberto Alesina, Edward Glaeser and Bruce Sacerdote argue that the answer is that too many people at the bottom of the pile in the US are black or Hispanic. Across the US as a whole, 70% of the population are non-Hispanic whites - but of those in poverty only 46% are non-Hispanic whites. So a disproportionate amount of tax income spent on welfare is going to minorities. The paper also finds that US states that are more ethnically fragmented than average spend less on social services. The authors conclude that Americans think of the poor as members of a different group, whereas Europeans still think of the poor as members of the same group. Robert Putnam, the analyst of social capital, has also found a link between high ethnic mix and low trust in the US. There is some British evidence supporting this link, too. Researchers at Mori found that the average level of satisfaction with local authorities declines steeply as the extent of ethnic fragmentation increases. Even allowing for the fact that areas of high ethnic mix tend to be poorer, Mori found that ethnic fractionalisation still had a substantial negative impact on attitudes to local government.

Finally, Sweden and Denmark may provide a social laboratory for the solidarity/diversity trade-off in the coming years. Starting from similar positions as homogeneous countries with high levels of redistribution, they have taken rather different approaches to immigration over the past few years. Although both countries place great stress on integrating outsiders, Sweden has adopted a moderately multicultural outlook. It has also adapted its economy somewhat, reducing job protection for older native males in order to create more low-wage jobs for immigrants in the public sector. About 12% of Swedes are now foreign-born, and it is expected that by 2015 about 25% of under-18s will be either foreign-born or the children of the foreign-born. This is a radical change and Sweden is adapting to it rather well. (The first clips of mourning Swedes after the murder of the foreign minister Anna Lindh were of crying immigrants expressing their sorrow in perfect Swedish.) But not all Swedes are happy about it.

Denmark has a more restrictive and "nativist" approach to immigration. Only 6% of the population is foreign-born, and native Danes enjoy superior welfare benefits to incomers. If the solidarity/diversity trade-off is a real one and current trends continue, then one would expect in, say, 20 years that Sweden will have a less redistributive welfare state than Denmark; or rather that Denmark will have a more developed two-tier welfare state with higher benefits for insiders, while Sweden will have a universal but less generous system.​

Observe that Denmark is only "liberal" when it comes to benefits for Danes and they don't extend that liberalism to immigrants. It's not liberalism, it's ethnic solidarity.

 

[g5000]

I know this will most likely get turned into another shit-slinging thread unfortunately. Regardless, I found this research to be pretty interesting, informative, and worth passing along.

Why Democrats and Republicans don t understand each other - Vox

On social issues like gun control and abortion and gay marriage, there is a fairly clear dividing line between the Republican and Democratic parties.

But when it comes to things like spending other people's money, or expanding the size and scope of government, you can't tell the difference between them.

You like empirical facts?

When the GOP was in charge, they doubled the national debt, started a few wars, increased the size of the federal government, expanded the breadth and scope of government power astronomically, created an entirely unfunded new medical entitlement social welfare program, locked up American citizens without habeas corpus, spied on tens of millions of Americans without warrants, harassed reporters and spied on them, lost guns in Mexico, suffered several attacks on diplomatic missions overseas, created a whole new Cabinet-level department with massive police powers, and laid the groundwork for the greatest financial crash since the Great Depression.

When the Democrats were in charge, they doubled the national debt, increased the size of the federal government, expanded the breadth and scope of government power astronomically, created an entirely new medical entitlement social welfare program, spied on tens of millions of Americans without warrants, harassed reporters and spied on them, lost guns in Mexico, suffered an attack on a diplomatic mission overseas, and failed to robustly recover from the greatest financial crash since the Great Depression.

 

[Harry Dresden]

me so horny, so please refrain from using suck or sucking as a euphemism..
Both parties do vacuum...

sounds like a personal problem.......Spoony i hear this babe is in your neighborhood right now looking for some unadulterated sex....

View attachment 31986

Didn't I see her on Broadway lugging a Kirby?

she was just out here at Hollywood and Vine.....