You're assuming, of course, that seniority still means something:

Republicans won control of the House in 1994, after forty years in the political wilderness and several decades of trashing the Democratic leaders of the House, and portraying the body itself "as an evil institution." Newt Gingrich and other backbenchers relentlessly and endlessly attacked for over a decade, charging Democrats with misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance - or worse. Republicans promised they would do better if given a chance to lead.

Once in control, the GOP leadership made fundamental changes in the operations of the House. None was more dramatic than eliminating the powerful fiefdoms of committee chairmen who had obtained their posts though seniority alone, under both Democratic- and Republican-controlled Congresses. Under the new Republican rule, chairmen were to be selected by the leadership based on a combination of seniority and willingness to play ball with the leadership.

The idea was that the Speaker would centrally control the House by controlling committee assignments and chairmanships. "Gingrich made it clear from the outset that committee chairs answered to the leadership and, by extension, to the entire Republican Conference," Eilperin writes.

Gingrich and his team imposed a host of other reforms upon taking control in 1994. They ended proxy voting in committees, which required members to actually stay to participate in the mark-up of legislation. They placed term limits on chairpersons, and imposed management and budgetary controls on the operations of the House, while eliminating patronage jobs in the mailroom and similar sinecures.

GOP leaders were more generous than their Democratic predecessors in providing at least a third of committees' budgets to their minority staff. (Democrats operated on a four-to-one or five-to-one ratio.) But they soon literally closed Democrats out of participating in the legislative process. Straight party-line votes prevailed in committees, and to entice special interests to fund the "Republican revolution," many committees all but outsourced their work to the interested parties.

No change was more apparent than the aggressive fundraising from special interest groups by the GOP leadership -- who, in turn, doled out the loot to those lower in the pecking order, and demanded strict party loyalty. Seeing the success of the Republicans in controlling their party, Eilperin shows how Democrats followed suit - becoming just as partisan and money hungry as the their Republican counterparts.

The 1994 shakeup, and the ensuing Republican control, has made the House into a bitter political battleground. To analogize the warring parties to "fight clubs" may add more respectability than is deserved.

Seniority is a matter of rules and tradition, NOT statute. Pelosi will come under intense attack when they start the new term, as will many of the others on your list.

Given the "we're like Republicans, only NICER" strategies of Emmanuel and Hoyer, I fully expect them to ape the Republicans IF they take the House. Loud arguments will be made that the House members must be "careful" not to give the Republicans ammuntion to be used in '08, so that they can't be used against Clinton or whatever other center-right corporatist hacks is pushed forward as the nominee. Genuine progressives will be frozen out, or if they win the battle, the caucus will be so bloodied and torn by the fight that they'll be rendered ineffective.

Your faith in these people is touching. Sadly, there is little or no evidence that it is justified.

"Whenever a Voice of Moderation addresses liberals, its sole purpose is to stomp out any real sign of life." - James Wolcott

Of course, the recipient of your research won't give a  shit because the role Madman sees for himself is as a voice for the extreme edge of liberalism and such extremists by temperament are always so sure of themselves that they never listen.

You have proved your point, a Democratic House will be more progressive.  The question is whether they will have the courage to lead in the face of constant attacks, or lie down and let Bush and the media set the agenda.  I agree with Madman that Emmanuel and Hoyer are less than worthless.  We need progressive challengers for them next cycle.

Interesting that in both houses, no Dem ranks below any Rep. Gotta admit, that goes against my perceptions, but on the face of it does seem to show that party matters a lot. Of course how "progressive" is defined and how the issues are weighted makes all the difference in the results. For me, for example, Lautenberg on the Senate side has no business being ranked 7 because he voted pro-torture. That blows away whatever he may have done on school prayer or ag subsidies or car insurance. The ranking also doesn't take into account how likely the member is to blow in whatever wind comes along. It would be interesting to do some kind of scale based on how much courage it took to make certain votes because of the rep's home district demographics.

Still that doesn't invalidate the point. Most of the important chairmanships will not go to DINOs this time, to all appearances. I share some of Madman's skepticism that the Dems will follow tradition in the face of terror about providing ammo to the GOP in 08. The prog side of the ledger might do well to make a triage list just in case: the committees and individuals who MUST get the job or else. For me that would include Obey, Miller, Dingell, Berman, Frank, Harman, Conyers, Slaughter, and Rangel. There might be negotiating room on some of the others, if necessary.

FDR's response to progressive demands: "I agree. Now go out and make me do it."

I don't know the details/analysis of the methodology you used, but, I don't believe it, sorry.    

YEARS ago, I lived in John Conyers district.  On her best day, Nancy Pelosi can't hold a candle to John Conyers!

"First, they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win." Mahatma Gandhi

Look at all those women and minorities and gays and otherwise cool people (Waxman!)  I feel a little seedling of hope growing in the garden of my mind . . .

I gotta admit, I'm surprised that Bernie Sanders is ranked as far down as he is.

My own Congressman, Jim McDermott, is ranked #10 in the House. He's not on this list, which is a shame.

I can't help but think that under the cover of being in the majority -- and a majority that looks like it will be swept in pretty handily, if the good FSM's willin' and the creek don't rise and all the tea leaves are telling us true -- more Democrats will be willing to speak their mind and vote their conscience. Of course His Nibs has been saving his veto stick for just such an occasion; let's see him actually start vetoing legislation that does things like raise the minimum wage. (How much of a Democratic House's agenda will be echoed by whatever the Senate turns out to be is another question; we'll just have to see on that one.)

I for one welcome our new Twitter overlords. @Omir55

Why is Cynthia McKinney on this list?

assuming the custom of seniority stands. especially because the house is a virtual partisan dictatorship compared to the senate.

do one of those for the senate dem leadership, booman, and the scenario is a lot less heartening, though.

</bush>

According to Harold Meyerson in the Washington Post.

Can't hear ya, Peach!