Shortly after the election, as it dawned on the left that Breitbart was a true media force to be reckoned with, liberal operative and media watchdog David Brock announced to his donors that he wanted to turn his Web site, Shareblue, into a “Breitbart of the left,” a partisan news site that would seek to undermine Donald Trump’s incoming administration. The notion was instantly derided as facile, superficial, and unlikely to solve anything. “David Brock is the worst possible messenger for Democrats. He should not be given a single dollar more,” progressive strategist Jonathan Tasini told The Hill. Vox said the idea was just the latest in the “long, sad history of liberal efforts to copy right-wing media.” (Breitbart itself loved the irony of Brock, the man who ”once tried to destroy” them, now attempting to replicate their methods.)

Brock, who came to prominence as a right-leaning journalist before switching sides and founding left-wing media-watchdog organization Media Matters, is undeterred by the criticism. In a wide-ranging conversation, he laid out how Democrats lost their way, why the party struggles to connect with voters, and what the left can learn from the right. “Breitbart is just the analogy. We’re not going to do what they do. We’re going to be an antidote to what they do,” he argued. “We’re going to use facts.”

The Hive: What was the purpose of ShareBlue and what do you want to turn it into?

David Brock: The purpose of ShareBlue was to make the case for Hillary [Clinton] in a way that would engage grassroots audiences. The highest-trafficked item we ran in the whole campaign was an article titled “Hillary Is One of the Most Ethical (and Lied About) Political Leaders in America.” That was shared more than 2 million times. We were making arguments for Hillary and they were factual arguments, but they had an emotional tenor to them. And I think the something that’s missing in a lot of liberal communications: they’re dry and fact-driven. But people want more than just facts. That was one difference.

The other difference is that there are sites like the Huffington Post that are really progressive or liberal, but they weren’t Democratic. They weren’t especially pro-Hillary. We saw an opening. The context in which we presented her candidacy was that Hillary had problems running as the candidate of continuity and the status quo in an environment where most voters wanted change. So [the blogger and activist who wrote the post] Peter Daou positioned her not as the victim, but as the underdog in a society filled with rampant sexism and media bias against her. And that worked for an online audience.

“We’re going to push a progressive vision, but we’re going to go after spineless Democrats who want to make nice with Trump.”

Then the election happened. We thought we would win, and going forward, we thought we’d be a supportive voice for Hillary’s administration. And of course, that went out the window. Basically, what I’ve been saying since the election is that we want to create a Breitbart—the press has said “Breitbart of the left.” It’s really an antidote to Breitbart on the left. In other words, Breitbart is just the analogy. We’re not going to do what they do. We’re going to be an antidote to what they do. Or they could say we’re going to be a Breitbart for the left, but we’re going to use facts.

How does someone who’s so closely affiliated with Media Matters, an entire site devoted to fact-checking conservative media, pivot and start “Breitbart for the left”?

We’re going to use facts, but we’re going to do more than be just fact-based. We’re going to try and connect with readers on an emotional level.

You have a lot of catching up to do. Breitbart recently hit about 40 million uniques in a calendar month.