Wyoming is unlikely because I think the two seats represented by Ds are significant Native areas.
There’s also the point that both Wyoming, a very urban mountain state, and Massachusetts, a pretty catholic white ethnic state, are trending towards being more competitive, not less.
Zaybay has already shown that, if anything, the opposite is true for Massachusetts’ trend, but this is also a very odd way to frame its political demographics. The reason that it is so D, and not going to change anytime soon, is that it is the most college-educated state in the nation, and a fairly secular one (IIRC, Boston shockingly actually has one of the lowest % of practising Catholics of any of the historically white ethnic major cities).
I still stand by my claim that the states are trending in rather opposite directions. Top-line trends towards Democrats in Massachusetts are mostly the result of D swings in populous Boston and its suburbs, but parts of Western Mass and Bristol Co trended toward Trump in both 2016 and 2020. In the current alignment, I think Massachusetts will abandon being so idiosyncratically Democratic and fall into the usual, national trend of urban/suburban - exurban/rural political divergence. That doesn't mean I think MA will be remotely competitive anytime soon, but I think later this decade and into the 2030s it won't be unusual for non-metro parts of the state to prefer sending Republicans to the state house.
All of this pretty much applies in the opposite partisn direction in Wyoming.
The only parts of Western Mass that swung towards Trump in 2020 are Hispanic urban cores and a few random towns in Berkshire County. There are some more places that trended towards Trump, but not by much and they were mostly low-population rural areas. Rural Massachusetts (a) is a very small percentage of the state's population, and (b) has way too many people who aren't "culturally rural" enough to vote Republican.
