The states that are best naturally gerrymandered are generally those where the Democratic party is most reliant on blacks in order to achieve 50%.
Wrong as usual.
North Carolina is relatively good for Dems, and they most certainly rely on black voters there.
Replace "black" with "urban voters" (not the same thing by any stretch) and your statement would be more accurate- with the caveat that packing Dems in urban centers is sometimes not that bad in heavily-Republican states, letting them get a couple seats they might not have with a more even distribution. The best example of this is probably Utah- a fair map would give the Dems one seat in Salt Lake City and environs, despite the state being so strongly Republican in general.
North Carolina is 'relatively' good for the Democrats for Congressional districting if you make convenient choices that favor the Democratic party.
It is of course a not 'relatively good' for Senate/House legislative seats where excellent performance was achieved by the Republicans despite barriers to vicious gerrymandering. As proof one can merely look at the delegations from Mecklenburg County.
Try thinking next time.
The Republicans tend to overperform a decent amount in both Wake and Mecklenburg county. Wake however has a lot precincts that are 48% Democrat, 52% Obama, so there still is a decent chance for a Dem to win those places.
NC really does favor Democrats if you follow communities of interest, like a commission would. Some of this is due to incumbent strength- Shuler's seat would lean Republican in all but the most extreme Democratic gerrys. But all the others would all still lean towards the Democrats with MCIntyre's being a tossup.
Of course, a fair map would also do things that the Democrats wouldn't like, like shoring up Ellmers and Foxx.
