Aggregate stats are nice when it comes to presidential, but we still have a bunch of reps like Boebert who cause havoc in DC.

Sure, but every US state has such a local split. It’s relative to the proportion and size of dense urban areas, and has been at least since the early aughts. But every “coastal liberal” state (or whatever the “blue state” signifier is) swings sharply conservative as you trek out to less populated areas, with very rare exception. And every “red state” has at least a small island that deviates leftish, even Wyoming.

Clearly you haven't been to Colorado Springs, the second largest city in Colorado

I haven’t, but a few searches seem to reinforce my point. What am I missing from afar?

Think of Denver (700k) vs. Colorado Springs(450k) like SF(800k) vs. Oakland (450k) but unlike Oakland which is __roughly__ an extension of SF politics, CO Springs is deeply conservative to Denver's deep liberalism. CO Springs is home to the Air Force Academy and a number of military installations which underlies its politics. Its a "dense urban area" whose politics happens to be conservative. The skew left or right in Colorado typically comes from voter turn out in other areas of the state, e.g. Arapahoe, Jefferson, Boulder, Douglas and the swing of independent voters which makes up 45% of the electorate.

There are cities which run conservative. Bakersfield comes to mind in California, also roughly the size of CS, at 403k population.

The urban/rural alignment of liberal v. conservative politics is a good general rule of thumb. There are always exceptions.

But even (or especially) in deeply-conservative states, cities tend to be far more liberal. Salt Lake City (Utah), Austin (Texas), and Atlanta (Georgia) are particularly strong examples.

Aggregate stats give a clearer picture of statewide politics though. Boebert wasn't elected by the whole state, only the 3rd district.

And we have two Democratic senators now. That's perhaps the best indicator that Colorado is hardly polarized.