These states you pointed to are not simply "red" any more than much of the country is "blue" by political affiliation. In fact, the actual difference between a red and blue state is so minimal that politicians must employ all kinds of underhanded tactics to assure they will remain in one party or another.

Texas, for example, would be easily moved into the blue category if not for extreme gerrymandering and voter suppression. It would, at least, require politicians to actually work for some purpose beyond their own re-election and provide the population with some justification for their jobs.

Our country is divided more by urban/rural concerns than it is by any real political philosophy. If you look at a district map of any reasonably large city within a rural red state you will see just how desperate politicians are to nullify the political will of those city dwellers lest they find themselves out on their collective cans.

Rather than give up on a large portion of our population and deem them unworthy of democracy it would be much better to acknowledge the differences and accommodate them. We could even make it easier for some large cities to declare statehood, which would do more to turn around our politics than anything else I can think of.

Imagine Texas without Dallas, or even Austin, which both lean blue, or Georgia without Atlanta, Michigan without metro Detroit. I'm sure you get the picture here. Then imagine that each of those city/states would add two Senators and also take most of the house representatives from the state. The turnaround would be like from night to day in national politics while still leaving the rural communities to their own political fate.