That is an optimistic count. :)
What's really remarkable is that there are far more seats than my quick "optimistic" overview that ought be targeted and are certainly winnable for us, and we're not doing it.
I'd certainly think it is feasible for us to have every district Dubya got better than 45% in (as often many local GOP Congressmembers will outperform the President). Based on Dubya's weakest performance in 2000 (applied to the '02 seats), that would still be a whopping 270 seats.
If you look at the average number of seats the Democrats held from 1933-1995 (removing 1947-49 & 1953-55), it was around 265 seats. Conversely, including those two years we previously held Congress, and everything after 1995, we've only averaged 229 seats. It's why it always seems a bit tougher for us that we haven't had the kind of extra insulation that the 'Rats had for a large part of their run, but there ought not to be anything stopping us from padding ours for a change. It's outrageous we haven't gone above 236 members since before the 1948 elections. Prior to the '94 loss of Congress, the Democrats never went BELOW 236 since 1957-58 (and for 6 election cycles, they held more than 290 seats, the last as recently as 1975-79).