Is the Republican South Starting to Crack?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The author of this article thinks so (as I do), and here are three paragraphs that especially caught my attention:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We could see the emergence of a much larger, stronger, and more influential moderately-conservative Blue Dog Caucus than before. 

If this happens, it would be great for the Party.  If more moderates are elected from the House, than more moderates can move into the Senate, and eventually, the nominees for President will increasingly be moderate Southerners.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Virginia, unlike Mississippi, will be Democratic, or at least leaning Democratic, by 2016.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I don't think that we will see another era of moderate southerner democrats. The Carter-Clinton period is definitely ended. Finally, we will see liberal northerners taking the control of the party.
The Democratic party will be a true progressive party.

I disagree.  While the era of Southern moderates may be ending, the era of Southerners will not end for a long time.  We may see more Southern populists, though, while the moderates in the mold of Carter/Clinton begin to lose influence.  Many of the rising stars in the Party are Southern, and that will continue, as Southern states elect Democratic Governors.

In terms of Obama not needing Southern states, that's been true of every election victory on either side since 1972 except for 2004, 2000, 1988, and 1976.  The Democrats cannot afford to give up on the South, because eventually an election will come when, without the South, they won't be able to win on their current base.  If the Democrats turn away Southerners, and become the Party of New England, then they will not be able to win elections anymore. 

New England (the states from Maine to Maryland) hold 114 electoral votes, a number which will go down in 2010.  The South (Old Confederacy + WV, KY, MO, and OK) holds 184 electoral votes, a number which will go up.  If the Democrats want to forsake the South, they will need to focus increasingly on the Midwestern states from Ohio to Nevada, and it will be more difficult to win elections than if they would spend money on places like VA, NC, FL, and GA.  To abandon the South is to give the GOP a major chunk of electoral votes for free, rather than making them fight for it.  It's different than giving up the UT, ID, MT, etc., area; that bloc contains only 20-30 electoral votes, and is not growing at nearly the rate the South is.

It is easier, then, for the Democrats to spend money in a couple of Southern states, and spread extra money in other places, than to abandon the South and be forced to have an all-or-nothing campaign in the West.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Actually, democrats are more likely to win West and Midwest than the South. Obama's margin in Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado are more high than countrywide.
The new democratic coalition durably doesn't need south to win elections. With democrats gaining ground in western states and some states like Indiana, South is the place where they haven't to go. Excepted the east coast, who is getting more and more blue, and Texas, where hispanics could make it a swing state, South will become the main republican region, maybe more than places like Idaho and Utah. Look at the 2008 trend map : western trends are the more democrats, whereas the only states who Obama did worse than Kerry are in the South.

Yes, but those states aren't anywhere near the size of the South, and what if the GOP nominates a candidate who fits well with those states?  The Democrats should not abandon the South in any way.  To suggest that they abandon any part of the country with more than 7 electoral votes per state is not a good way to win elections.  I'm not saying they should focus on winning MS at the expense of winning AZ, but to give up on that entire region is foolish.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Actually, democrats are more likely to win West and Midwest than the South. Obama's margin in Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado are more high than countrywide.
The new democratic coalition durably doesn't need south to win elections. With democrats gaining ground in western states and some states like Indiana, South is the place where they haven't to go. Excepted the east coast, who is getting more and more blue, and Texas, where hispanics could make it a swing state, South will become the main republican region, maybe more than places like Idaho and Utah. Look at the 2008 trend map : western trends are the more democrats, whereas the only states who Obama did worse than Kerry are in the South.

Yes, but those states aren't anywhere near the size of the South, and what if the GOP nominates a candidate who fits well with those states?  The Democrats should not abandon the South in any way.  To suggest that they abandon any part of the country with more than 7 electoral votes per state is not a good way to win elections.  I'm not saying they should focus on winning MS at the expense of winning AZ, but to give up on that entire region is foolish.

Obviously, but htat's true for every region. A party who gives up in a region automatically reduces his chances to win. That means republicans should not give up in New Hampshire and Pennsylvania as democrats should not give up in North Carolina or Kentucky. But, anyway, the present democrat coalition is very strong without the south.

Very true; I'm just saying that just because the coalition was strong this year without the South, it included some outliers.  We shouldn't depend on the non-Southern states to pull us through.