Control of legislative chambers is split between parties now in two
states — Minnesota and Virginia — compared with 15 states 30 years
ago.

^{Quoted from first NY Times article below}

From this NY Times article, to this one, in the Washington Post, and in The Atlantic, it seems obvious that states are more heavily progressive or conservative, with fewer truly "purple" states.

One take comes from thisBBC article quoting Republican Senator Josh Hawley

I would predict that the effect is going to be that more and more red states are going to become more red, purple states are going to become red, and blue states are going to get a lot bluer [...] And I would look for Republicans as a result of this extend their strength in the Electoral College. And that's very good news.

One can assume there has been a liberal/progressive congressman(-woman) who has spun the scenario to their benefit as well, but I've yet to find a source to include here (open to suggestions). One related note, that could potentially be extrapolated to show a net benefit to progressive's is found here. While not directly stating that, it suggests a benefit of polarization is engagement, which has, in U.S. history, benefited progressives.

Regardless of Senator Hawley's correctness, and assumptions based on turnout and engagement, what impact do more polarized states have on the United States Federal Government?