In a wider context you are probably correct, but it's worth pointing out that the urban areas in the South are pretty damn progressive.
The urban areas everywhere tend to be pretty progressive. The political and cultural distinctions between any given state's urban and rural areas are a lot more profound than the distinctions to be made based on West Coast, East Coast, South, or Midwest.
Yes, are all despised by their rural neighbors. And vice-versa. But the bias is bidirectional: Those in the cities look at the rural folks with just as much contempt and disgust as those folks in the country look at the cities. Perhaps more.
E.g. While Trump won the state of Nebraska, Hillary did win the counties of Douglas and Lancaster, the two counties that house the two largest cities in the state (Omaha 446K, Lincoln 280K).
The midwest is not a place where you really strike it rich. It's a place where you have a shot of having a good family arrangement. You can easily surround yourself with relatives, and other folks like you. You're rarely forced into considering other points of view. There's a really strong sense of "being in your place" there, in many ways. I think the folks with a genuine curiosity about the world end up leaving.
It was really interesting to me watch the debate and discussions surrounding the Amazon HQ2 when I was travelling through the midwest and the south. Folks from those areas really want the economic growth from a new HQ, and were quick to point out progressive changes that happened in their city. They would never talk about those progressive changes in a positive light if big tech were not moving to their neighborhood.
So, one solution to some of this is money and jobs. I was impressed at how quickly that opened people's minds there.