It is the common wisdom in the press that almost all seats held in the U.S. House by Republicans(R's) are solid, easy re-elections. Only a few are competitive. But then we read that there were more Democratic(D) votes cast for House seats in 2012 - 1.4 million more -than R votes even while R's won about 30 more seats.
The math doesn't work. Why?
Certainly there are many R seats in states like Idaho, Utah, Oklahoma, or the Deep South where R's have regularly crushed their D opponents and will do so again in 2014. But the strategy that has enabled R's to do so well in 2012 was based on redistricting in states in 2011 where they control the legislature. Their tactic was not to create solidly R districts but rather to create many districts where the R's would win 55-45 and a few districts where the D's win 70-30. That enables the state wide vote totals to be 50-50 while R's win most of the seats. Example: North Carolina.
Entering the 2012 elections the D's held a 7-6 advantage in House seats there. However a 2011 redistricting by an R legislature created new district boundaries - based on known voting patterns - that led to a final 2012 result of 9 R's winning and only 4 D's even though D's got more statewide votes, 51% vs. 49%!
Magic? No. Just great redistricting. The winning percentage by the 9 R's elected was typically about 57%( the range being 52% to 63%) but 3 of the 4 winning D's received 74-80% of the votes in their districts. The final winner was a very conservative D( pro guns, anti-abortion, etc) who barely won with 50%. Except for that oddball race the R strategy worked; i.e., put most of the D voters in very blue districts where their votes are wasted on runaway races and then win the other districts by 10-15%. Bingo, you have control -without even having to win the popular vote!
The press is wrong : the pivotal Republican House seats are not there due to overwhelmingly "red" districts but rather cleverly designed close ones. If they act extremely they could lose in 2014. Time to study the math.