More on voter disenfranchisement

I know that I already commented on Lisa's post on FL and MI, but, I honestly can't help myself.
The argument is that FL and MI are disenfranchised because they won't be seated (not yet a foregone conclusion, by the way). As I stated in my previous post, they most likely did have an effect on the momentum of the campaign, which is usually a bigger aspect of the primary than delegate awarding.
But lets turn the tables around. In the '04 primary, CA voted on March 2nd. By that time, Kerry had won 18/20 primaries and was the de facto nominee. So did CA have an opportunity to make an impact on the election? Hell no they didn't. Neither did NJ, which voted June 8th, after every other state voted. In fact, really only the first 10 states mattered in the '04 primary - all subsequent states just ratified their decision, which was Kerry. Personally, I'd say that those 40 other states were more disenfranchised than FL and MI.