Skip to main content

In the thread titled Clinton years: where did Dems err? I posted the text below (starting with "Kennedy finessed...")

Does the electorate trust the Democratic Party?

Dems and liberals are fond of quoting polls that indicate that the electorate is more closely aligned to the Democratic agenda.  The electorate tends to agree with Dems on domestic issues.  The electorate tends to prioritize issues Dems say are important.

Yet, Democrats under-perform in elections.  Why?

It often seems Dems and liberals fall back on the explanation the electorate is stupid, ignorant or is voting their prejudices.

For the sake of discussion, let's assume that the electorate isn't stupid or ignorant.  They aren't primarily driven by prejudice.  (Also, I'd like to leave discussion of conspiracy, e.g. voting machines, to other threads.)

Is there a case that Democrats aren't trustworthy?

Besides Dems being untrustworthy, what other explanations would account for Dems doing badly?

Is it because the Democratic Party isn't clear on who and what it stands for that it doesn't have a clear message?

Is it because the Democrat ability to tailor different messages in different places isn't viable in the era of a national media?

Kennedy finessed getting more Blacks to vote Dem in 1960 and getting more Southerners to vote Dem at the same time.

Has the Democratic Party finessed so many issues that regular folk don't trust Dems?

I would like to see polling on the following questions:

  • Do you believe Democratic candidates believe what they say on the campaign trail?
  • Do you believe Republican candidates believe what they say on the campaign trail?
  • Do you believe Democrats will work to implement what they talk about when campaigning or are they merely saying what they think people what to hear while planning to do something else if elected?
  • Do you believe Republicans will work to implement what they talk about when campaigning or are they merely saying what they think people what to hear while planning to do something else if elected?
  • Do you consider candidates that say things they don't believe or cynically promise what they don't intend to deliver to be untrustworthy?
  • How important is it that you trust a candidate before you vote for her or him?

Originally posted to Carl Nyberg on Fri Dec 26, 2003 at 05:19 PM PST.

Poll

Do swing voters have reason to distrust the Democratic Party?

11%4 votes
2%1 votes
48%17 votes
14%5 votes
5%2 votes
17%6 votes

| 35 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Re: Are Dems trustworthy? (none)
    I feel that the Democrats have a huge image problem.  Unfortunately we have been cariacatured as wimpy meanwhile the Repugs have positioned themselves as the "tough cowboy" types.  Somehow the Dems need to turn this around.  Having wishy washy people like Daschle in leadership roles doesn't help.  Also, Clinton's personal life hurt us badly.  We need tough charismatic leaders (eg., Dean or Clark) not nerdy types like Gore.  We need to tell the the Ann Coulters and Rush Limbaughs of the world to f*ck off.  We need to promote Repug scandals (even if we have to make them up).  We need to get ruthless and rough and then we might get some respect from the airheads who should be voting Democrat (eg., southern blue collar types) but aren't due to arrested development.
    •  airheads who should be voting Democrat (none)
      Why should these people vote Democrat?

      Do you think the Democratic Party respects these people?

      •  Re: airheads who should be voting Democrat (none)
        Relatively speaking, the Democratic philosophy respects people in the lower income brackets more than the Repugs philosophy does. It goes without saying that in general, the Democratic philosophy is tailored more for the "average" person than is the "survival of the fittest" or "let them eat cake" or "borrow and spend" general philosphy of the Repugs.  Unfortunately, the Dems have wavered from their core philosphies (hence the rise of the Greens) and have allowed themselves to be painted as "sucks" and waverers and panderers (eg., Clinton etc... ) The Dems need to stand fast on some principles and "let the chips fall where they may". The Dems need Clark.
    •  Dem party not masculine enough? (none)
      Have the Democrats been emasculated by the decision to prioritize female voters over male voters?
  •  Re: Are Dems trustworthy? (none)
    Dems are FAR more trustworthy, on average, than Bush Republicans (notice my qualifications).

    Also, American voters ARE severely ignorant of what they need to know to select a leader based on his/her policy merits. This is not entirely their fault, as the media lie to them on a regular basis.

    That said, many Dems have (in the past especially, but still today as well) committed the crimes of obfuscation, sanctimony and putting doctrine ahead of fact.

    I note in particular the political correctness" movement (yes, I knew Dems in UC Berkeley who used that phrase without irony in the '80s), and the hard Lefties who did things like apologize for Pol Pot because he was against Nixon and Kissinger.

    This, however, is well in the past.

    While todays Dems are far from perfect (esp. Sharpton, Lieberman and (I grieve to say) Kerry), they must now be compared with the Bushies, who are the most toxic gang of thugs ever to seize power in the USA. There is simply no comparison between the two groups. Any Dem running now is infinitely better than a second Bush term.

    Anyone who is in possession of the facts re Bush and the present crop of Dems must either agree with that, or be categorized (by me, at least) as either stupid, self-deluding or morally bereft. I understand that "getting in possession of the facts" can be a chore these days because of the collapse of our media, but the overall shape of affairs is pretty obvious.

    As I have said before here, this is our Dreyfus Affair.

    •  Re: Are Dems trustworthy? (none)
      My point is not to argue for Bush's re-election, but to point-out how Democrats contribute to Republicans winning.

      What should be done to make the media better?

      BTW, why do you think voters might consider Dems more untrustworthy than Republicans?

      •  Re: Are Dems trustworthy? (none)
        Good.

        That's better.

        Improviong the media?

        Get corporate money away from the news gathering and presentation business.

        Re-institute the "Fairness Doctrine" in network news.

        The Dems indubitably have their issues; I listed some of the ones that irritate me.

        But the big issue this time is Bush.

        He's the first kleptocrat we've ever had.

        The media have colluded with the Bushies to silence and shout down folks who want to do what the press used to do - investigate Government and keep it (to some degree) honest. I assume that they have done this because the people who own the media corporations have a vested interest in Bush winning (thats a fact, just look it up).

  •  Re: Are Dems trustworthy? (none)
    Since Bush is the biggest liar to every reach the office, in the sense that he lies more often for his personal benefit than any president has, ever, the question is incorrectly framed.

    First you throw out, for sake of argument, a host of explanations - without reason - and then draw a conclusion.

    Not very trustworthy I am afraid.

    NB this doesn't address whether the theory that Democrats aren't trusted is true or not, merely that your post frames it in an illogical manner.

    •  explanations thrown out (none)
      I find the claim that Dems got cheated by rigged voting machines to be paranoia without supporting evidence.

      I find the claim the electorate stupid, ignorant or prejudiced to be circular logic.  Democrats and liberals tend to messure being smart and informed as agreeing with Democrats and liberals.

      The unsupported accusations about voting machines being rigged are counterproductive b/c they discourage people from voting.

      The claims that the electorate are stupid, ignorant or prejudiced allow Democrats and liberals to avoid the possibility that the Dem Party needs to update its issues.  I also find these explanations profoundly insulting to voters.  "I know you voted for Bush and a Republican Congress out of stupidity, ignorance and/or prejudice, but I'd like to make the case you should vote Democrat in 2004."

      •  Re: explanations thrown out (none)
        Carl, I hardly know where to begin.

        70% of people polled a few months back thought that Saddam was behind 9/11.

        That is ignorant and misinformed by any standard.

        The Diebold thing matters because such machines allow votes to be changed with impunity - Your argument the electoral equivalent of tossing C bills on the street and expecting them to be there the next morning.

        Etc. etc. etc.

        You haven't addressed the patent criminality of the Bushies at all, which was my central point, since I concede that the Dems are frequently quite imperfect.

        You must address these issues in good faith if you expect to be considered anything but a shill for bush.

        •  Re: explanations thrown out (none)
          So how did Saddam Hussein's links to 9/11 affect the 2000 elections?  1994 elections?  The Congressional elections in between?
          •  Re: explanations thrown out (none)
            They're LIES

            I used that as an illustration of the ignorance of the voter.

            Your point is simply irrelevant. I never claimed that this has affected an election -yet - although I'll bet that Bush is counting on this misinformation helping him in 2004. But that's BESIDE THE POINT.

        •  voting machines (none)
          Do you have any evidence that Republicans won a single election by voter fraud?

          I live in suburban Chicago, and I'm pretty sure the bulk of the cheating happening around here takes place in the Democratic primaries.

          •  Re: voting machines (none)
            Why do you respond to nearly every post with another question?

            Are you just being provocative?

            Are you writing a thesis and mining this site for insight?  Or do you not want to do research?  If you don't read links that folks have provided over the weeks, does that mean it's okay to ask questions that force the same point to be made over and over again?  

            Or have you read the links and choose to disregard them?

            •  Re: voting machines (none)
              I ask questions because I want to push people to think.

              By "provocative" do you mean to provoke thinking, provoke conflict or some other meaning?

              I am not writing a thesis.  If somebody makes a claim that is self-serving or lazy, I as for a supporting link.  If a point can't be substantiated by a credible website, there's a good chance that it's just bullshit.

              If there's so many links to support a point, it shouldn't be any trouble to google the issue and provide one, should it?

              •  Re: voting machines (none)
                I ask questions because I want to push people to think.

                Okay.  That's very fair.  But what do you think?

                By "provocative" do you mean to provoke thinking, provoke conflict or some other meaning?

                I leave that to your interpretation.

                If there's so many links to support a point, it shouldn't be any trouble to google the issue and provide one, should it?

                Absolutely agree -- if googling on the same information once, twice or even several times.  However it is troublesome to google the same things again and again.  If this information is truly new to you than I am being unfair and left out a question:  Is this new information for you?

                I will also say that I like on a previous post that you asked for evidence that Republicans had won a single election by vote fraud rather than asking for proof.  It's difficult to have proof with no investigations.  In any case, many of these original articles are no longer available on the web -- at least for free.  Look at the date on this one (try link to original story) which I got to from here.

                I'm not sure I agree that asking questions really gets people to think.  At least for me and many people that I know.  I realized long ago that this only gets me to articulate why I think a certain thing.  Not a bad result, but still an incomplete one.  Asking questions while providing some insight of your own provides the added benefit of really getting a discussion going.  This was the technique of my favorite instructors.  And I really do come here to learn.

      •  Re: explanations thrown out (none)
        I agree with you that the Dems need to update their programs to meet the needs of the present and future and that they need to do a better sales job. Clark is capable of being a Teddy Roosevelt type.  He is an interesting combination of toughness (military general who has been wounded), intelligence (Rhode's scholar) and charismatic.  Teamed with Edwards who is running as a populist and who would certainly get a lot of women to vote for him they would put the South in play.
      •  Re: explanations thrown out (none)
        The unsupported accusations about voting machines being rigged are counterproductive b/c they discourage people from voting.

        where is your support that this discourages people from voting?

        "...prepare for President Dean." -- bill kristol

        by niner on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 01:38:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  do rigged elections discourage voting? (none)
          If you tell people their vote doesn't matter b/c the Republicans are going to steal the election anyway, do you expect this to discourage them from voting?
          •  Re: do rigged elections discourage voting? (none)
            i didnt see anybody here say don't vote because it doesn't matter.

            funny how you demand people to support their arguments while you fail to do the same.

            "...prepare for President Dean." -- bill kristol

            by niner on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 09:13:40 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  why vote in rigged elections? (none)
              How do you respond to John Q Voters question, "If the elections are rigged by the Republicans, why should I vote?"
              •  Re: why vote in rigged elections? (none)
                you show no study that demonstrates that the publics response is to be discouraged from voting when encountering stories that report on questionable electronic voting machines. by that logic, coverage of florida's recount shouldn't have been reported either lest it discouraged voting.

                what you seem to advocate is an ostrich response of the less, we know the better. media shouldnt do any reports that challenge the validity of our votes.

                so we should just ignore the 3 uncertified software patches applied to diebold machinery in alameda county during the recall election? a violation that caused the california secretary of state to halt certification of future diebold machinery that it had planned to install.

                How do you respond to John Q Voters question, "If the elections are rigged by the Republicans, why should I vote?"

                first, you misrepresent the issue. it's only you who is framing the question this way. while others are calling for the need of awareness, you are calling for the issue to be ignore.

                in the raising of questions about the validity of electronic voting that lack a paper receipt, how do you know the response doesnt inspire more care taken while voting such as avoiding such machines and resorting to absentee ballot instead?

                "...prepare for President Dean." -- bill kristol

                by niner on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 05:56:04 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  Re: Are Dems trustworthy? (none)
    granted, we can always do better in crafting message to be stronger BUT this isnt just a problem with message. you have to take into account the media filtering and skewing that message. a recent example is how the press set up dean to look like all of a sudden, he's just now only discovered religion when that wasnt the case.

    i remember an interview with clinton insider daniel benjamin (author: the age of sacred terror)
    where he was asked why clinton never talked to the public about terrorism. benjamin answered clinton talked about it all the time in speeches but the media never covered it.

    media controls message. and in a strange way, clinton enabled this. how?

    1. why didnt clinton restore what reagan dismantled: the fairness doctrine.
    2. he supported deregulation of telecommunication which encouraged growth of media conglomeration.

    [bush's] budget and economic plan are based on Enron accounting. They project revenues that will never appear and hide expenditures that will. --al gore 10/02

    by niner on Fri Dec 26, 2003 at 06:08:10 PM PST

    •  media (none)
      What is the essence of the media malfeasance?

      Where do we want to be WRT the media?

      How do we get there?

      •  Re: media (none)
        What is the essence of the media malfeasance?

        i don't know what you are getting at by asking that question. surely you remember the double standard by how the media went after gore while it didn't hold bush accountable and gave him a pass.

        Where do we want to be WRT the media?

        i remember a poll from last year written up in either bbc or the guardian (naturally it had to be from a UK outlet) that the majority of americans (iirc, was in the 70% range) get their news from TV. as was suggested in the previous post, we need a return of the fairness doctrine.

        what i don't get is this: hate radio has been eating us alive for years and years. why didn't establishment dems, including clinton,  recognize that danger in the 90s and did something about it then? it's only now that they're collaborating and working to put a liberal voice on radio. just imagine how far along we'd be now if a strategy was put in place then. why wasn't it addressed then? can you imagine republicans being passive, laying down and taking all of the abuse that rush dished out? i can't either.

        How do we get there?

        i consider blogs to be a counter to hate radio. but it isn't enough. radio is a blue collar medium. we desperately need to establish a loud presence there. NPR doesn't cut it.

        [bush's] budget and economic plan are based on Enron accounting. They project revenues that will never appear and hide expenditures that will. --al gore 10/02

        by niner on Fri Dec 26, 2003 at 08:58:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Re: Are Dems trustworthy? (none)
    granted, we can always do better in crafting message to be stronger BUT this isnt just a problem with message. you have to take into account the media filtering and skewing that message. a recent example is how the press set up dean to look like all of a sudden, he's just now only discovered religion when that wasnt the case.

    i remember an interview with clinton insider daniel benjamin (author: the age of sacred terror)
    where he was asked why clinton never talked to the public about terrorism. benjamin answered clinton talked about it all the time in speeches but the media never covered it.

    media controls message. and in a strange way, clinton enabled this power. how?

    1. why didnt clinton restore what reagan dismantled: the fairness doctrine.
    2. he supported deregulation of telecommunication which encouraged growth of media conglomeration.

    [bush's] budget and economic plan are based on Enron accounting. They project revenues that will never appear and hide expenditures that will. --al gore 10/02

    by niner on Fri Dec 26, 2003 at 06:08:55 PM PST

  •  Re: Are Dems trustworthy? (4.00)
    The problem is two-fold.  You're saying that Democrats think that the electorate is..well..deeply flawed. The problem is that they don't ACT like they are.

    The GOP maintains its control through deception. It's as simple as that. They are constantly lying. The people don't see it as such, mainly because the Democrats believe that the public arn't stupid enough to believe it. They are. Why hide from it?

    How can the message be changed?

    #1. It has to become much more blunt. Instead of treating the GOP with respect, the gloves should come off, and they should put the issue directly to the voters. The more respect they give proven liars, the more people believe those liars are telling the truth.

    #2. It has to become much more optimistic, and much less fatalist. Talking about how Americans overwhelmingly support war/death penalty/lower taxes blah blah blah, is incredibly fatalistic. The idea is to make a better society..not make a game in order to jst get power.

    #3. The moral focus needs to be revisited. Because you are blatantly religious does NOT mean you are a moral person, or are untouchable. How you act and what you do are much more important than what god you believe in.

    These are big problems. And they may not be achievable. But if they're not....why bother fighting? Everything is beyond hope. And THAT is pessimistic.

    We are the radio.....What is it you want to change?

    by Karmakin on Fri Dec 26, 2003 at 06:40:43 PM PST

  •  Re: Are Dems trustworthy? (none)
    It is far easier to be a Republican and conservative.  The world is so much more black and white.  People like simplification.  And this simple world view is appealing.

    Democrats and liberals comprise a more diverse group and try to look at issues on many levels, giving, to the extent possible, weight to all sides and points of view.  As a result, we can get bogged down.  Also, when a choice is made, there is a greater tendency to upset members in our diverse tent (not to mention the rest of the public).  That makes us seem less certain, and entitled to less trust.

    Still, I'd rather be a Democrat and liberal anyday.  At least I know how to think and analyze and give consideration to points of view not just like my own.

  •  Re: Are Dems trustworthy? (none)
    Before tackling your question, I'd like to pose another question:  are workers better off with or without a union?  The generic answer is with a union.  But if I'm a "captain of industry" of industry, how would I defeat the organization and mobilization of workers once they have acquired unionization rights?  First let their leaders become more invested with maintaining their power than representing the workers.  Then demonize union leaders and then blur the lines between who is better for workers, the good corporations or the bad union leaders.  Unions, to survive, grant concessions to the corporations and the corporations in turn allow unions a small win here or there but with each round the unions become weaker and weaker.   Over time workers come to believe that they are better off without those union dues and fail to recognize that the average worker makes less and less because nobody with any power is articulating the facts in language that they can understand.
    The GOP is primarily the home of the "captains of industry."  They pay for it and let the Party figure out how to win and advance their agenda to rid themselves of the "New Deal" policies that placed constraints on their primary purpose to make themselves as rich and as fast as possible.  They may be uncomfortable with the racists and Christian fundamentalists the GOP needs to win not because they are particularly moral but because they are wary of the potential power of zealots if mobilized.  However, their poster boys from Nixon, Reagan, to GWB have been excellent at keeping these masses focused on relatively minor political issues like abortion and fear of the bogie man while they advance their larger agenda.  They are astute enough to know that they cannot push too hard or too fast, and must also maintain the illusion that the game is fair or risk a serious backlash.
    They also recognized the Ford and BushI were weak horses and in cutting them loose, discovered that they were able to further demonize DEMs and increase their power and agenda further and faster than if those two had been re-elected.  It is no accident that Clinton had early support from people like Jackson Stephens.  Like Reagan, Clinton was able to garner significant support from the Party base without giving them much except lip service.
    Clinton was so much better for the GOP than Carter had been because he let more of the GOP agenda in and allowed the GOP to grab the personal morality high ground that Carter had deprived them of (hence DEMs are now less "trustworthy" than the GOP, only a slight variation from the past when all politicians were deemed untrustworthy).  Like what happened to unions in the 1970's that set the stage for Reagan's frontal assault on them in 1981, GWB is assaulting the DEM establishment and is winning precisely because they fear losing their power more than they desire to stand up for the reasons the Party exists.  Some in the DEM "establishment" think that our elections hinge on finding that mythical "centrist position" and attracting those "swing voters."  And I'll grant that it does look like that, but those open shop laborers also think that unions would be bad for them.  The problem with that conclusion is it does nothing to explain the reelection of Nixon and Reagan and not Ford and BushI, the continuing decline in voter participation and the GOP control of Congress not by moderates but GOP radicals.
    My guess is that Clinton initially scared the hell out of the GOP, but by 1994 they had discovered how easy it was to derail him and a second term for him wasn't all that objectionable, particularly since he made it easy for them to maintain control of Congress.  Gore was not as ethically challenged or compromised as Bill and therefore presented a bigger risk if he became personally popular.  GWB possibly scares them a bit when he insists on making some decisions and my guess again is that they would have preferred not to invade Iraq since such acts are so inherently unpredictable.  With Baker back in the saddle, they are possibly trying to rein in the boy.  If he refuses to obey and/or becomes politically vulnerable, they would prefer to lose to a DEM who doesn't successfully challenge the balance of power between the GOP and DEM..  Who would that be?  
    As I am of the opinion that even a weak GWB would beat an Orthodox Jew in 2004, I doubt that they would see Lieberman as the one even though otherwise he would be the best choice.   My other guesses are as follows.  Gephardt in spite of his union backing would easily be portrayed as weak if he were in the WH.  A year ago Kerry would have seemed to have the capacity to upset the status quo more than Joe or Dick because he did have very liberal roots.  Edwards due to inexperience could easily play out as well as Carter did, but he does have the potential to become very popular personally if given center stage and time to develop because he is less personally flawed than Clinton and could advance a more Democratic agenda in a second term.  Therefore, I would rank Edwards as being somewhat riskier to them than Kerry or Gephardt but only slightly more so.  Then there is Clark who surfaced out of no where.   No political experience, no national name recognition (as compared to someone like Powell in 1996 or 2000), and not even a public figure in the DEM Party until this year.  Clark is either as much of a wildcard for them as he is for Democrats.  If one looks at the degree to which the right has attacked DEM candidates over time, we can see that they mostly left Joe and Dick alone and went hard against Kerry and Edwards until they started fading.  They seemed to ignore Dean early on, possibly because they knew he had no big bucks behind him and being technophobes didn't appreciate that Dean could get there with small donations.  They did "get it" by July and have been hitting him hard since then.  The GOP response to Clark remains muted even though he has been mouthing things similar to what Dean says and has mimicked the Dean campaign claiming grassroots support and internet fundraising.  Dean is clearly the one DEM candidate who if he were to win would challenge the power status quo, and that, not which party lives in the WH, is the most important component to the GOP and DEM "power brokers," and they were simply not prepared to have someone like Dean emerge as strongly and as early as he has.  And IMHO both Parties would like to do something about this but haven't any idea what that is and both are hoping that IO and NH provide the clue as to who they need to rally around to derail Dean.  
    •  bite-sized pieces (none)
      Marie,

      When communicating on the web it helps if you break-up your text into bite-sized pieces.

      •  Re: bite-sized pieces (none)
        Do you mean thoughts or spacing?  Perhaps the former was too much for a comment but a blank space between paragraphs would have made it more visually attractive.
        •  Re: bite-sized pieces (none)
          Paragraphs should have one open line of space between them.

          Paragraphs should be kept short.  My guess is that most effective web communication generally keeps paragraphs from being more than a few lines long.

          As for ideas, I think it's worth trying to break them down too.  Start a discussion with the big ideas and then get into the detailed supporting arguments and facts.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site