Right, so they took advantage of the nomination process to avoid competing with works that would probably beat them.
Back in the early 70s there was a character who called himself "Count Dante" who used to advertise himself in the back of comic books as "'The Deadliest Man Alive'" (in quotes) based on his victory at an international death-match martial arts tournament he'd organized. What he neglected to mention is that he won this tournament by default, being the sole entrant.
That's exactly what the Sad Puppies have done. They've turned an impressive achievement into an impressive-sounding one.
Back in 1978 Frederik Pohl won the Best Novel Hugo for "Gateway", which was a scathing anti-capitalist satire. Gateway beat out a number of good novels, including "Lucifer's Hammer" by right wing authors Larry Niven and Jerrry Pournelle. But it didn't beat "Lucifer's Hammer" because of politics. Niven had one five previous Hugos and I think Pohl had won one. In fact "Gateway" is so dryly mordant I think a lot of people who read it don't realize it's satire. Had Niven and Pournelle won because they'd manuevered to have Pohl excluded from the ballot on political grounds, people would remember "Lucifer's Hammer" not as a great novel in its own right, but as that novel that should have lost to "Gateway".
Authors should concentrate on writing, not electioneering awards for themselves.