I don't agree that the Midwest is necessarily biased against Democrats. I think it's just that Republican gerrymanders are able to severely exacerbate any slight partisan leaning in terms of geography.
With a fair map in place, I think Ohio would actually favour the Democrats. Democrats would surely hold a Cleveland-based district, a Columbus-based district, an Akron-based district, and a Toledo-based district. More than likely, they'd hold a Youngstown-based district and a lake-shore district between Cleveland and Toledo. The far Northeastern district and the Cincinnati district would be swing districts, as would perhaps the Appalachian district that would hug the border from south of Youngstown down to Athens. There would also be a Dayton-based district that would probably be no more than R+1. That would basically leave six safe Republican districts. I think Democrats would also have at least six to eight districts in their hands in a neutral year. A fair map in 2012 would have at least sent Betty Sutton back to Congress from the Akron-based district (and Tim Ryan from any Youngstown-based district).
Why should there be a district between Toledo and Cleveland? And why should you divide the eastern and southeastern suburbs of Cleveland between an Akron-based district and Youngstown-based district? And why should Cleveland be divided?
