Over at File 770, Mike Glyer breaks down the Sad/Rabid Puppies slates and compares which one was more effective at forcing names onto the awards list.
On a related note, Abigail Nussbaum of Asking the Wrong Questions has this to say about the Hugo nominees:
On a related note, Abigail Nussbaum of Asking the Wrong Questions has this to say about the Hugo nominees:
To begin with, I'd like to discourage people from referring to the bloc-voting campaign with the moniker Sad Puppies. Larry Correia chose that name when he started encouraging his fans to "take back" the Hugos three years ago, and Brad Torgesen adopted it for his suggested slate of nominees when he took over the project this year. In the latter case, there seems to have been a deliberate attempt to distance the Sad Puppies from the toxicity of bigots like Vox Day (who was not on Torgesen's ballot) and to present a kinder, gentler face of right-wing bloc-voting. Day's response to this was to post his own suggested slate, the Rabid Puppies ballot, including himself in several categories. As this analysis by Mike Glyer shows, it was Day's choices that prevailed, with almost all Puppy nominees appearing on both ballots or on Day's alone. Our current slate of Hugo nominees are not a Sad Puppy ballot; they're a Vox Day ballot. They represent the views of a racist, misogynistic, homophobic troll, whose supporters solicited the help of GamerGate to achieve their goals. Using Sad Puppies as a blanket term allows the people who helped make this happen pretend that it comes down to nothing more than a political disagreement between equally valid stances (as Torgesen has been doing in the Making Light thread) instead of what it actually is, a hate campaign.
