At state with statewide and federal elected officials of both parties is by definition a purple state. I never have a problem acknowledging a mistake when I make one. But most posters, particularly Democrats, are far to ego frail do do so, particularly since Biden banned Democrats ever accepting any facts.
Kansas by definition is a purple state at this time.
I would not agree with that definition. I mean you could define anything anyway you want, and there is no "technical definition" of purple state, but that definition would make red state/blue state/purple state pretty much meaningless. Any state can elect someone of the opposite party if the circumstances are correct. That would make ID, WY, AK, AR, GA, IN, MS, NE, ND, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, and WY the only red states and CA, CT, DE, HI, IL, MI, MN, NJ, NM, NY, RI, and VA.
States like WV, AL, KS, where Republicans win up and down the ballot by wide margins red states, while Michigan, which Trump won in 2016 would be a blue state since Democrats swept all the offices there in 2018. MA, VT, and MD would be purple states despite overwhelming Democratic dominance at every level for every statewide election except for the governor's race. All it would take is one horrible candidate to turn a red state purple. As Roy Moore in 2017 proved, that can happen anywhere, regardless of the state's composition.
If I did the list by your definition in 2006, while OK, WY, KS, AZ, and AR had Democratic governors while HI, VT, NH, CT, and MD had Republican governors and a whole host of other states had opposite party members in statewide elected positions, the only non-purple states in the entire country would have been Alaska, New Jersey, Texas, and Utah. And any definition that has 46 out of 50 states as purple at the same time, basically renders the term meaningless.