Scott Adams (yeah, the guy from Dilbert) seems convinced that Trump will win, and it seems like Politico now is starting to come around to his opinion:http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/how-donald-trump-defeats-hillary-clinton-217868
Scary. I took a brief binge through Politifact and found out a number of interesting things. Here is Trump's record:http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
40% humbug, 21% utter humbug and how many true statements? One (for the record, this one is about Putin's high popularity in Russia). He has 5 more "mostly true" (usually indicates a honest mistake that didn't affect the point too much), one of which is quoting a tad outdated statistic on oil fields in Iraq, one is about parents spanking children and three others are pretty much personal attacks. Not a single one about immigration, where he manages to consistently score "pants on fire" and "false". He's got some relevant half-truths, but that's about it.
Clinton, on the other hand, does her research well:http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/
I can see quite a few humbugs on her side, too, but over a half of what she said is good, at least as far as Politifact can tell. A cursory reading makes them look more relevant than Trump's statements on spanking children (a whole lot is about guns and gun industry).
And yet, people are betting on Trump. Clearly, truth is just like oil, as the old saying goes.
Not only can it be cracked, refined and distilled into something that doesn't resemble the original very much, it's also much more valuable in that condition.