what part of the country will the democrats do best in in 2012

[Dgov]

Republicans will hold MN-8--they'll just trade the Iron range with MN-7 for some Republican parts of West MN.

Illinois--the Reason the Republicans have a majority of the seats there is because they hold all the marginal seats around the Chicago Burbs and all but one of the downstate districts.  Democrats have 1 congressional district not overwhelmingly in Cook county (East St. Louis district), but they win those districts by such a huge margin it basically carries the rest of the state.

PA and OH--See the redistricting thread.  Democrats are more likely to actually lose a seat in both states due to reapportionment and Republican gerrymanders.

[Dgov]

Republicans will hold MN-8--they'll just trade the Iron range with MN-7 for some Republican parts of West MN.

Not going to happen with Dayton holding the veto stamp. Minnesota's map is probably going to end up being drawn by the courts, and I doubt they would radically change the map like you're suggesting.

Yeah it is--it makes Peterson much safer by taking him out of a McCain District and ensuring that democrats can hold his seat if he retires (which is now only 2 points less Republican than Bachmann's MN-6).  It's also a much more logical geographic fit (Moorhead to Duluth) than the current map which ties the Iron range down with some Republican-leaning St. Paul Exurbs.  The whole reason it was drawn that way in the first place was to try to protect both Peterson and Oberstar in their North-MN districts, which is both no longer needed and no longer possible given that Republicans control the MN legislature.

Its not like this is some nakedly partisan gerrymandering--its actually making the map cleaner and safer for both parties.

[Dgov]

The Democrats have no reason to care about shoring up Peterson, he obviously has that seat as long as he wants it. He could retire perhaps, but a 5-3 map with him that'll likely go 4-4 upon retirement is preferable to a solid 4-4 map. Also put Duluth in Peterson's seat and he most likely gets primaried, even ignoring ideology people from Duluth don't want to be represented by someone from a place where North Dakota is associated with urban city life anymore than they want to be represented by someone from the exurbs.

. . . Do you honestly think Dayton will veto a map over one provision that will probably be included in a court-drawn map anyway?  Its not like the Democrats have control over the redistricting process like they did last time and are merely debating the benefits of moving it or not--they're going to get a take-it-or-leave-it map, where the "leaving it" option will probably wind up being similar to the Republican map anyway.

[Dgov]

The Democrats have no reason to care about shoring up Peterson, he obviously has that seat as long as he wants it. He could retire perhaps, but a 5-3 map with him that'll likely go 4-4 upon retirement is preferable to a solid 4-4 map. Also put Duluth in Peterson's seat and he most likely gets primaried, even ignoring ideology people from Duluth don't want to be represented by someone from a place where North Dakota is associated with urban city life anymore than they want to be represented by someone from the exurbs.

. . . Do you honestly think Dayton will veto a map over one provision that will probably be included in a court-drawn map anyway?  Its not like the Democrats have control over the redistricting process like they did last time and are merely debating the benefits of moving it or not--they're going to get a take-it-or-leave-it map, where the "leaving it" option will probably wind up being similar to the Republican map anyway.

Actually, let me comment on this one a bit more.  From my limited understanding of Minnesota demographics, I believe that a Duluth to MN-exurbs district is not as demographically coherent as a Duluth-Moorhead district.  I don't really understand why it would be the other way around, but if there's something I'm missing please tell me, cause you can't draw a district from Duluth that doesn't include at least one of those two areas (without ugly gerrymandering)

[Dgov]

I think with Minnesota, they should draw Peterson from Detroit Lakes down the I-94 corridor to the MN exurbs. Yes, it will make it more Republican, but hey, Peterson is a closet Republican.

That way, we can create an Iron Range-Reservations-Moorhead Northern seat where Chip Cravaack would likely lose.

Cravaack lives in the MN exurbs part of the district, so he'd be running against Peterson under that sort of map.  Also, Republicans hold both chambers in the MN Legislature, so i don't think they're going to draw a D Gerrymander