A brave little theory, and actually quite reasonable, if we hadn’t already seen Rand Paul crater before Iowa had finished voting. I might have even gotten behind it myself before then.
The GOP without the South is a permanent minority party. Trading the South in the hopes of winning a few techno-libertarians in Silicon Valley who, by themselves, wouldn’t even swing the state of California sounds to me like a prescription for losing. (See, e.g., the election map from 1976).
The only Republican candidate in this cycle, who is, presently, creating the possibility of the GOP moving significantly beyond its Southern base is, ironically, Trump. His support in the primaries has centered on an odd coalition of the old Dixie states and the old Yankee states. He is, apparently, winning support of a good segment of the religious fundamentalists without really trimming his sails to their agenda. But it sounds like you explicitly ruled him out.
It sounds as though you’re really talking about having the Democratic Party expunged of its Social Justice Warrior element. Of course, the same appears to apply to them — without that base, they’d be fairly impotent as a party, too.
Perhaps the solution is a multi-party system; that way we can have ideological purity in our political parties and let the politicians deal with the elements in society that we hate, rationally or note, and still pat ourselves on the back and claim “well, I didn’t *vote* for that!” Or: “Yes, I’m a techno-libertarian, and I really didn’t support that deal my party had to cut with the religious fundamentalists. But we had to do that to get their support on net neutrality.” I guess we’d sleep better at night because of that, too.