Not off the top of my head, but there were a lot of attempts at something like that in the 20th century. Most of them were associated with escaping social norms (e.g. communes, cults, etc.) and ultimately failed.
> 120k blue votes would do it
You're missing a few factors:
1. Land votes, not people. One of the reasons Republicans are a minority party and control the country, even at most state levels, is because of gerrymandering. You need far more than 50% of the state to take it back over, especially if the Supreme Court is tolerant of extreme gerrymandering (as it has been for years now).
2. A large percentage of people don't vote. If you want 120k votes, you need probably 200k+ potential voters.
3. There is an explicit strategy by the GOP to make purple states (like Texas) scary or unpleasant to live in for Democrats.
> The only reason we all huddle in cities is because the rest of it is so left behind that we don't want to help it anymore.
I'm not sure this is true. I think the #1 reason for living in a city has been the job opportunities, and the #2 reason was the social connections. Maybe it's close to friends, family, or a like-minded community.
You don't have those things in a random spit of land in the middle of nowhere. You won't have an airport, convenient highways, easy weekend getaways, nearby beaches, etc.
Serenbe is cool, but it took decades to develop it into a real competitor to a city, and it was also consciously built close to the busiest airport in the world. You can't replicate those conditions quickly or easily.
I think if you had $30B to spend, you could either build a town or boost the endowment for youth voter turnout, and I think the latter would give you better social returns on your investment.
