I find it interesting that a lot the places that have grumbled about forming their own state; The UP, western Illinois, way northern California, etc.; are all places where there are hardly any people. It's almost an inevitable side effect of proportional representation that people from rural areas will feel ignored by their state government. Fewer people scattered over a much larger area makes it tougher (and more costly) to do the same kind of civic stuff as we do in the cities.
I've seen that in my own life, growing up in a northern Wisconsin map dot and now living in the MKE. People are often resentful of their own state's population centers. I'm sure people in other states experience that phenomenon where the name of their capital city is used as a slur. I grew up with the milieu that we were better than those dumb ol' cities down south with their traffic and crime and arts and diversity and noise and traffic. Having lived in both, I now see the advantages and disadvantages of both places.
Ironically, giving these sparsely populated places their own states would create the opposite problem where a relatively tiny population suddenly has a LOT of power. Doesn't really seem fair to go out of the way to give 300K people the same influence as 8 million. I mean obviously we have big states and small states through quirks of history and geography, but to carve out new states for disgruntled country folk in the 21st Century can't be seriously considered. It's just a fun way to generate some attention for the concerns of a region.