Doc, do you actually think that's a fair characterization of any Democrat's view? Whew. Let's try unstacking the deck a little.
On Gerrymandering: There are volumes upon volumes of data that it happens and that it has real effects. Different parties have benefited at different times, but in the current era Republicans have controlled the majority of state legislatures and have used this advantage to warp congressional districts. Hardly anyone disputes this, including Republicans who have set up political action committees and other fundraising mechanisms for exactly this purpose.
Here's a good overview of the current state of affairs: http://svds.com/better-know-districts/
My favorite redistricting story occurred when I was covering the Oregon legislature in the 1980s. Back then, the state's secretary of state ran elections and districting (many states not including Oregon have since established independent commissions to handle this). The secretary of state at the time, a moderate, very popular Republican named Norma Paulus, was pretty fair about how she drew districts but made one exception. There was a working class Democratic rep from Portland who Paulus absolutely detested. She had a lot of company - he was irritating. So when she unveiled her early 80's redistricting plan it was quickly evident to everybody that she had throw the offending rep into a different, very popular Democrat's district. The guy had no chance of winning a primary and Paulus essentially ws ending his career.
Asked if she had intentionally put the rep, his name was Davis, out of a job.
Paulus smiled very sweetly and said: "Of course not. Mr. Davis was just a number to me. Unfortunately, his number was up."
The difference between stuff like this and the current state of affairs are the afore-mentioned infrastructure that has been built to direct this nationally and the data-driven opportunity that exists to draw districts precisely to benefit one party or the other.