Well, the article itself seems vaguely cognizant of what's going on, but I can't read too far because of some of the silliness.
"Despite the ceaseless "war on women" narrative, it's hard to argue that Republicans have a problem with women."
What nonsense. Okay, don't get me wrong, the "war on women" was somewhat overhyped and was basically a vanilla attack line for Democrats, BUT the chart of white women votes proves nothing. Hypothetically, let's say that the Democratic candidate in 2016 gets 70% of the black vote. Does that mean arguments that the Democrats have a problem with blacks are nonsense in this hypothetical scenario? NO! Blacks routinely vote at rates of 90-95% for the Democratic party in presidential politics - when Obama WASN'T on the ballot. A collapse of support to "only" 70% would be huge and something epicly noteworthy. Anyway, married white women is a demographic that the Republicans SHOULD and NEED to be strong in. A shift of, say, a win by 60-40 to a win by 55-45 among married white women would have David Axelrod dancing at the DNC. Same reason that Bush was considered to be a very good candidate for Republicans among Hispanics, though he lost the demographic big - Bob Dole had lost Hispanics even bigger.