Blue states have been producing far more than their proportional share of the nations GDP for the last 100 years, the vast majority of it if you take oil out of the equation. It takes people to make that kind of GDP and those people have a long tail. Chicago is right now paying pensions for teachers and firefighters and police officers that were crucial to allowing the city to produce more GDP than the entire state of Florida back in the 50s and 60s and 70s. Florida has no such pension tail, they were a mostly agrarian, low population density state contributing very little to GDP during that time. Even worse, a lot of those retirement dollars are going from current Chicago tax payers to their retirees in FL who spend it there. If everyone moves to FL, then FL will have to hire police officers and teachers and firemen and the rest and 30 years from now they'll have a pension reckoning as well no matter if it remains a conservative mecca or not. If you're going to have an honest conversation about this, you have to address this fundamental concept of the long tail of GDP production or you're just looking at it from a simpleton sound bite perspective.
Are you saying that democratic mayors and governors are more advantageous for businesses, corporation and economy? How do they do that? Here is another statistics. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-small-business/wp/2016/10/12/study-republicans-are-24-percent-more-likely-than-democrats-to-be-business-owners/?outputType=amp
It is good to keep an open mind to broad and historical perspective. That said, human nature doesn't change. We will continue to see the natural response to various incentives and disincentives going forward, regardless of where or when they originated.