Republicans did a between-census redistricting in Texas, and the Supreme Court said that was OK. Blue state legislators and governors would be entitled to study that decision, figure out exactly how much naked partisanship they could get away with, and pay the Republicans back.
For better or worse, though, elected Democrats seem more inclined to operate on principle. California now sets its district lines through an impartial commission. In New York, the Democrats might well retake the State Senate next year, but even if that happens, they've made it clear that they won't use their control of both houses plus the governorship to implement a screw-the-Republicans redistricting.
I did see a sample map, though, even if only for fantasizing purposes. Someone worked out the details. It featured a district in the central part of the state that looked sort of like a nerve cell, with tendrils going out to wrap around the major urban areas without including them. With so many rural Republicans packed into that one district, the rest of the upstate districts could become reliably Democratic. In New York City, it would break up Staten Island, the most Republican borough; the northern part would be in a district with lower Manhattan while the southern part was joined with Brooklyn, in each case bringing in enough Democratic neighborhoods that Michael Grimm (the current incumbent Republican) couldn't win in either district.
Back in the real world, you're right that this won't happen. In 2014 we have to do our best with the district lines we have. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean suppressing all talk about gerrymandering. If nothing else, we might get some traction by portraying the Republicans as cheaters. Some voters who don't follow all the intricacies of economic policy will nevertheless respond to the idea that the election shouldn't be rigged.
= new reply since forum marked as read