I voted leave. I'd vote the same way again. My impression is that most people are thoroughly entrenched in their position, and I agree with what people said upthread - that that's because, in the end, it was a vote that rested on identity and emotion (and virtue signalling too, to a large degree).
Our impressions of how the Brexit process is going are hugely affected by the kind of media we read. If we read the Guardian, then anything positive is "despite Brexit". They know their readership will click on article headlines that feed their anxiety/ anger about Brexit. If we read Guido, then it's all going pretty well. (and similarly click-baity in the opposite direction).
In the end, David D is just the mouthpiece. Behind him, there is an army of Whitehall mandarins and lawyers going over any proposed agreements with a fine tooth comb and, similarly, there's an army of Brussels mandarins and lawyers going over the UK's proposals. They'll find some agreement that is legally acceptable to both sides, but there'll be lots of willy waving at the press conferences along the way.
Why did I vote Leave? Because I really don't like being part of a club of rich white northern hemisphere people, who have tariff free trade between themselves, which makes it hard for people from poorer parts of the world to trade competitively into that market. I'd rather have a more level playing field, globally, which means not participating in that rich white northern trading bloc, but opening up possibilities of more mutually beneficial trade agreements with different countries. And that may well mean that we end up relatively poorer. If we are in favour of less global inequality, then us being less relatively wealthy would be a good thing, no?