big data vs. pundits – 1 : 0

So, after all it wasn’t such a ‘razor tight’ presidential race last night. Not that the Big Data camp expected one in the first place. Nate Silver, the poster child of predictive analytics in the political arena made a pretty convincing case for why Obama was very likely to win; he actually quantified it at around 90% probability. Just for kicks, compare this to Kimberley Strassel at the WSJ who in all earnest made the case for Romney just one day before the election.

In short, independent of the political outcome of this election it’s a yet another great showcase where Big Data wins hands down over punditry!

P.S. if you don’t have a subscription you can also get a copy of Strassel’s—well, what am I going to call it? Article?


About Mike Waas

I recently founded a data virtualization startup that will change the way we use databases. Stay tuned or if you're interested in joining the revolution, contact us at
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to big data vs. pundits – 1 : 0

  1. Entong says:

    The key assumption in Nate’s analysis is that the polls are reasonably accurate. And it turned out this assumption held well – sampling works indeed!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s