Yes, there are a handful of policy areas where the politics really do matter -- if you need it, did the state sign up for Medicaid expansion? If abortion may sadly be necessary, is it legal there? -- but I think in most areas, day to day life is no more oppressive in those states, and frequently the demographics are no less diverse (they are often more so).
We need to keep in mind the magnitude of coercion, or even of oppression, that arises simply from economic forces -- and these generally squeeze harder in the blue states. If the states with the "good politics" can't supply housing at a reasonable price, and if their affordable universities won't let your kids in, then what good are they? A red state with "bad politics" may be sufficiently cheap that the freedom it offers from wage-slavery may outweigh whatever oppressive laws are on the books there. The same goes for other countries. Suppose a country nominally has an authoritarian ruler, but he leaves ordinary apolitical people alone, and prices for medical care are reasonable. Maybe that's still a perfectly nice place to live? Maybe it's better than struggling to pay rent in the "good place"?
As for Texas and Georgia, local politics also matter. Some of the cities are blue islands. So you can't judge a county based only on what state it's in.
But if people are so blinkered that it's literally worth their entire life's wages just to own a house in the "good place", then I guess that's their problem.
That's my issue. The sheer amounts of money we're talking about are staggering. And you have to survive within an abusive corporate structure to get the money. Why tolerate that?
How can you have an emancipatory politics on the one hand, and sign up for lifelong debt on the other? It is good to try to free others, but if you can, shouldn't you try to free yourself first? Then, how can you free yourself in one of the places where money-power is strongest?