They won, why are they acting like losers? They are the victors, why are they acting like such poor sports about it?

Well, they "won" if you count scorched-earth tactics as victory. Worked for the Russians against the Germans in WWII because the Germans actually wanted that territory. With us, not so much, since the Hugo Awards aren't something we particularly want- as stated above, I'd be perfectly happy to see the awards burned to the ground and the soil sowed with salt.

As to why they act like the losers- Third Rule of Social Justice: SJWs ALWAYS Project.

I think the Bonfire is blazing right now.

They proved it. They won. They said they could cheat the Hugos, and they proved it in the most conspicuous way possible. We called their bluff, and their hand came up 5 aces.
Does it hurt them to be on the winning side? The privileged majority? Why do they keep insisting that their own victory proves nothing? Are they so addicted to being oppressed minority that when they flat-out prove that competence, artistry, and skill are utterly irrelevant in the face of the raw power of hate, they simply cannot accept their victory?

The more you point out that they are a living testimony to the power of the political majority, the harder they fight to try and convince you that they are the underdogs.

They won, why are they acting like losers? They are the victors, why are they acting like such poor sports about it?

Well, indeed. As I keep saying, WE DON'T CARE whether our chosen nominees win or not. If they do, great. If they don't, fine. We do care, however, about holding up a mirror to the SJWs running around giving No Award to categories where they don't approve of the nominees.

Which is, of course, precisely what they did.

2016 should be quite good fun. Dunno about you, but I'm bringing marshmallows to that particular bonfire.

"The sjw's said they were going to ruin the Hugos by voting several categories 'no award"
"They succeeded, proving it's not about quality, it's about politics."

And yet, a bunch of people keep reading that statement as 'Boo hoo my favorite authors didn't win." even though no author or category was mentioned, nothing besides the 'no awards' which are over twice as many in one con as have ever been given out before total in the history of the Hugo/Nebula awards.

It's like… buying a car who's brakes fail on the way home from the dealership, and when you contact the company they keep stating that "You cannot complain about the color, you picked it yourself!" even though you never even mention color.

Is their argument really so weak that they have to have both sides of the conversation?

why SP4 has already run off the rails and crashed and burned in the gorge below

SP4 has only just been announced, with no nominations forthcoming until March next year. Reports of its demise are perhaps a tad premature.

(1) People who don't care don't spend a lot of time writing angry posts saying they don't care.

So what are you still doing here, then?

Also, as I suspected- you are, indeed, functionally illiterate:

"Speaking strictly for myself, I haven't had this much fun watching the Left squirm under the weight of its own delusions and internal contradictions in years… I didn't vote this year for the Hugos- hell, I wasn't even a member of Worldcon."

Can't speak for why Anne Sowards didn't win

Are you innumerate as well as illiterate? The maths breakdown is very clear. Nearly 2,500 members of Worldcon voted NO AWARD. Anne Sowards got just 217 votes. Vox Day got more than twice as many votes as Jim Minz did.

The numbers point to an inescapable conclusion: the Hugos are not about merit, they are about politics.

@Didact — (1) People who don't care don't spend a lot of time writing angry posts saying they don't care. They walk away and do something else. So nobody believes you when you say you don't care. Really. The whole "we planned this all along" is just Vox Day's alternate "declare victory" speech. he has one for every occasion whether they make sense or not. (2) Don't know why other people voted NO AWARD over "The Hot Equations," but I did it because I found multiple technical mistakes in the text. (3) Can't speak for why Anne Sowards didn't win — I voted for Sheila Gilbert, myself — but Jim Minz lost to NO AWARD for the same reason that Toni Weisskopf did — the average Baen Book is poorly edited (check the average typo count sometime) and nothing in the Hugos Voter Packet made them seem like they deserved the award. [Insert: I knew and worked with Jim Baen going all the way back to 1974. He would not have been impressed with the Sad/Rabid Puppies movement. He liked a whole lot of fiction that the Sad/Rabids hate.] (4) Trying to claim equivalent between REDSHIRTS and "Wisdom from My Internet" is rhetorical nonsense.

Apparently, if I copy and paste a bunch of Internet memes into a Word document, now I can be eligible for a Hugo.

Pretty apt description of Redshirts in many ways, actually. Which WAS found to be Hugo-worthy.

Do you people have to get a mandatory ironioctomy before you're allowed to post on File770?

Oh, and some people may have different criteria for "eligible" vs. "Hugo-worthy." Apparently, if I copy and paste a bunch of Internet memes into a Word document, now I can be eligible for a Hugo. Gonna vote for me?