A year ago, I didn't think much of Trump but I liked a lot of his supporters. There has been a partial reversal of that.
One of the things I had disliked about Trump was his coarseness, which has significantly diminished since he became president. I have other objections, but for the moment I put them aside. Those also are diminished, especially his unforced errors. I like some of what Trump has accomplished, and I don't mind saying so. Foreign policy remains the giant question mark, though I like what I see.
Perhaps I am misreading what his supporters are like, getting caught up in my irritation at the least-rational of them and ignoring the majority. It is likely that his people are not that different in personality than they were a year ago, and it is my impression that has changed. Yet I am seeing a lot of commentary from people who seem to think that having a fight with your opponents is the solution to everything. They like Trump because they see him as willing to fight, and don't enquire too closely what exactly that fight is going to be about. Trump is willing to fight, or at least, signal that he is going to fight if pushed. However, his best-selling book is The Art of The Deal, remember? There is also this continued idea that they fought with the GOPe and defeated them, rather than competed against them and won their cooperation, however unwilling, because that's the way party politics works.
I suppose the GOPe may have looked at them in the same way if the roles were reversed. There was certainly history of that with Pat Buchanan and Sarah Palin. The Democrats look at Bernie that way also.
Other than 1964, 1972 and 1984, Republicans have either won close presidential elections or lost them since 1940. To believe that moving from a close loss to a close win is the result of the vindication of a small group of Americans is a first-order denial of reality.