Yes (though I'm impartial), I would've been fine with raiding Dalaran, taking out Jaina, then telling Varian to get control of his representatives. I'm not bloodthirsty on either faction. Both sides have done atrocities (outside Garrosh who was acting alone in his insanity [other leaders not consulted/agreeable on the paths he took]).
Some say they lost big time in Cata (Alliance), but really, the zone distribution was equalized. Azshara was an obvious progression; the zone was barely touched by anyone and bordered on a main capital city. It would be like having Westfall be Horde territory.
Illidan is considered Alliance because is is a Night Elf, just like Kael'Thas is related to Horde because he is a Blood Elf; but neither should be considered part of those factions at the time we kill them because they have both been excommunicated from their own kind. Similar can be said for Arthas. The case can also be made for Thrall/Go'el and Garrosh. Thrall stepped down, became neutral, he just happened to be an Orc. Garrosh went power mad and can be compared to Kael'Thas and Illidan. I suppose you can compare Thrall to Fordring in a similar way but as a protagonist role instead.
If there was a slant to the xpacs, I'd go:
BC: neutral
Wrath: Alliance
Cata: Horde
Mists: neutral
I'm not biased though. I have no bets on either side. I've played both for some time over the years and have seen slight advantages here and there to each side ... but if you are looking for favoritism, if you're outlook is already skewed, you will see what supports your already made decision ... through confirmation bias. Most of us suffer from this at times, we're human. When I was upset at the game for my own reasons, I could find plenty to nit-pick about; but now that I stepped away and don't have an agenda, not only do I see things that bug me, but I see plenty of good things as well.
What can and can't be fulfilled in game though, is up to how much effort the devs want to put into it. They could have the Alliance nearly wipe out the Horde, and make the changes in game ... but they decided, mostly because of the raiding vocal outcry, to not put effort into the WORLD of warcraft, but instead focus on raids. They could make it where the Horde were few in number and took a heavy beating. They could make it where in game, they have to tread carefully and not really able to set up major camps or show any real force; with a later xpac having something to even the odds; whether through a way to gain massive reinforcements or through the reduction of Alliance forces, or a mix of both to even the score. From opening a portal to a new land that sees the Horde as being oppressed from their small numbers versus the might of its adversary, to a group that doesn't like the ideals of how the Alliance is set up and wishes to knock them off their pedestal.
Point is, it can be done; but it takes resources. People want it all, and they can't give it; maybe if they can get back in to 10s of millions of subs they could hire enough to have full teams always working on the world, while still pumping out raids and still having a quick enough xpac cycle. But right now, they can't push out 15 boss raids every 6 months, work on an xpac to be released every 12-18 months, and keep the world dynamic and alive.
I personally would love a more alive world. Everything from dark nights and great lighting effects, to having things evolve over time as they would normally, like having Exodar and SMC get fixed. Like they did with Vale, but everywhere. I'd like them to have a team that worked on each zone, extremely focused, one by one, updating textures and models. Let the game evolve to today's standards (while keeping the art style). Some of them just need higher res textures and a bit more detail, not a complete rework, but no matter how big of a task, you can never finish what you never start.
This all ties in, remember, to keeping the world reflecting what happens in game and allowing things to change to show what happens in a more real-time way. It would allow for actual victories to be shown. Say have Alliance take over a zone or recapture a keep they lost a longtime ago. It would allow for defenses to be rebuilt, for plagues to be cleansed. It would be great to see Gilneas and Gnomeregan become true capital cities; and while they are at it, give make the gobin port a place for goblins to gather, a mini-city outside Org. Allow the trolls to develop their area into a proper city as well. Allow the Alliance to have current Dalaran hovering above destroyed Theramore.
But you have to be realistic in what can happen as well. You can't eliminate the Horde altogether; that rarely happens in reality either. Germany still exists, they were just heavily sanctioned by the Allies. This is similar to what the Alliance is doing to the Horde; only so far we don't see the Alliance spending tons of resources to rebuild the Horde as is the reality of what the victor does after war in the real world.
I think they go far too conservative, and they worry too much about people with shitty PCs. The only reason I've ever had, and ever will support the idea of WoW 2.0 is for the sake of them starting with a clean, new engine; eliminating ability bloat, freshening up the entire look of the world (while staying true to the style), fixing any plot holes, etc. Hell, they could just call it a reboot and start over at Vanilla in an alternate timeline/reality/universe. Add in a bunch of other stuff; but make all the content they wish they would've the first time around but didn't. It'd be a hard sell, but I think some incentives for moving over would work ...
I think no matter what happens; someone is going to complain about the next xpac being 'Horde-centric' if there is any Horde in it at all. Some are obsessed over it and cannot see anything but their seething hate and rage, and anything that supports it. I wouldn't mind if the next one was nearly neutral with slight Alliance bias, that would be good for the game imo; but it'd be bad if it was heavy Alli focused, in the same way it'd be bad if it was heavy Horde. In reality, it should be heavy non-faction based, with the slight bias towards Alliance in the AvH lore for best results I think.