The reason states are tempted to move their primaries forward . . . is that states perceive that they will gain a lot of attention and influence by doing so. . . [B]oth states would gain a great deal of attention and influence at this stage if they held elections—perhaps even more than they would have gained if their first primaries had been recognized by the party.So when they have these new primaries, Michigan and Florida will in essence get what they originally wanted when they broke the rules and moved their primaries up from Super Tuesday. The punishment, in this case, will end up being the prize.
What does this mean for future primaries? I suppose a state could move up its primary and get intentionally disenfranchised, with the expectation that it will get reinstated in the event of a close election, but primaries that are still this close (near the end) are rare. The primacy of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina is still more valuable over all possible conditions, so there will probably be no incentive to be later in the process.