Kevin Binversie looks at the 11 Assembly Republicans who voted against the 2015-17 state budget:

While it’s easy to group all 11 as some of the most potentially-vulnerable members of the Republican caucus, the reality is there are three groups here.

The Truly Vulnerable

• Ed Brooks, R-Reedsburg, 50th Assembly District
• Todd Novak, R-Dodgeville, 51st Assembly District
• Kathy Bernier, R-Chippewa Falls, 68th Assembly District
• Nancy VanderMeer, R-Tomah, 70th Assembly District
• Dave Heaton, R-Wausau, 85th Assembly District
• Warren Petryk, R-Eleva, 93rd Assembly District

With an eye on 2016, and the likelihood of higher Democratic turnout, there’s little doubt the majority of these representatives voted against the budget with concerns over their re-election at the top of their minds. Given recent teeter-tottering between the parties in these swing districts, even a “No” vote might not be enough to ensure a return to the Madison in 2017.

Of the six seats listed above, since redistricting, results have ranged from 48 percent to 52 percent for the Republican candidate in either 2012 or 2014. Three of these six seats (Novak, VanderMeer, and Heaton) had margins of victory (or defeat in the case of VanderMeer in 2012) which triggered a recount.

The others, while sitting on respectable margins of victory in 2014, had squeakers in 2012.

The Prevailing Wage Trio

• Keith Ripp, R-Lodi, 42nd Assembly District
• Scott Krug, R-Nekoosa, 72nd Assembly District
• James “Jimmy Boy” Edming, R-Glen Flora, 87th Assembly District

This set of state representatives each issueda press releaseagainst the state budget saying essentially the same thing, “I’m disappointed that prevailing wage language was included in the final budget.”

On an electoral level, nearly all three inhabit relatively safe seats. With each winning re-election (or initial election) to the assembly in 2014 with margins between 56 percent to 66 percent. Only Scott Krug, who won a squeaker in 2012, can claim true political worry.

Of course, how the Stevens Point-area Republican can claim he’s looking out for taxpayers by opposing prevailing wage reform while leaning towards support for a Bucks arena from his out-state district will be something to watch next year on the campaign trail.

The Big-Government, College Town Republicans

• Travis Tranel, R-Cuba City, 49th Assembly District
• Lee Nerison, R-Westby, 96th Assembly District

Both opposed Act 10 in 2011, both opposed prevailing wage perform now, both are from western Wisconsin and concerned about the vote from their college-aged voters. (Tranel from UW-Platteville, Nerison from UW-La Crosse)

Sense the pattern.

Electorally, both Tranel and Nerison are fairly safe. In 2014, Tranel won re-election with 61 percent, and won in 2012 with 54 percent. Nerison carried his district in both 2012 and 2014 with 59 percent of the vote.

Both essentially are longshots to be beaten in 2016, but they’ll be on the radar anyway. Tranel, elected in 2010 and one time was seen as a rising conservative star, has quickly developed a reputation as “the next Dale Schultz” in the sense he talks a solid conservative game in district, but is rarely there when the votes are counted.

Well, until Tranel casts a vote that actually kills a GOP wish-list item (for instance, mining reform, in which Schultz’s vote and all the Democratic votes killed northwest Wisconsin mining), Tranel is not a shorter, thinner Dale Schultz. Nerison may represent a district near La Crosse, but he does not represent La Crosse.

I assume the list of the Vulnerables is more or less accurate, though Brooks’ district hasn’t gone Democratic in my memory. Novak is a first-termer, but has qualities that will be hard for Democrats to oppose. I disagree with the stance those opposed to prevailing-wage reform took, but notice that it passed.

In fact, notice that the state budget passed even without these 11 votes, or the vote of Sen. Robert Cowles (R-Green Bay). That seems like good political maneuvering to me. The 11 can say that they opposed whatever about the budget they opposed, and yet, like Act 10, it passed anyway.

This is something Gov. Scott Walker can spin to his advantage in this politically divided state within this politically divided nation. If I were Walker I would say that the 11 No votes demonstrate that the Republican Party does differ on some subjects, that the GOP has actual political diversity, unlike the other side. Know any anti-abortion Democrats? How about any Democrats who favor the Second Amendment? (My definition does not include gun control that only affects the ability of law-abiding Americans to purchase guns.) How about any Democrats who favor general tax cuts, instead of cutting taxes for a few by raising taxes on everyone else?

With all due to respect to Charlie Sykes and the Right Wisconsin people, whose work I enjoy reading and who have worked hard to influence the Wisconsin political debate: I’m not sure labeling and appearing to shun Republicans who don’t vote your way is helpful to the conservative cause. (For that matter, the state GOP could be labeled into suburban-Milwaukee, Fox River Valley and outstate elements, with most of the aforementioned 11 in the latter group, and Walker, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald in the former group.)

The GOP has a 13-seat majority in the Assembly and a two-seat majority in the Senate. Obviously conservative legislation still is getting passed without every single GOP vote. In fact, the larger a majority is, the more likely there is to be wavering from the supposedly true line. That’s not much of an issue until your one-vote majority includes Dale Schultz, which is no longer the case.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel claimed that Walker wanted a big budget victory heading into his presidential campaign. Well, state government should not be negatively affected by presidential politics. The Republican Party needs to be bigger than Scott Walker, who may or may not become president and will not be governor forever, or, for that matter, any single Republican.