So you are presented with an in depth analysis of the actual truthfulness of each candidate, which clearly shows that most of what comes out of Trumps mouth is an outright lie, and you just swat it aside in favor of polling numbers? You do know what TRUTH means dont you? How many people choose to believe it is irrelevant.
There is no equivalency here. Most of Hillary's statements are true, and most of Trump's are false. That is a simple fact. Now the next step in your playbook is of course to attack the people doing the analysis, but you wont find any reputable group claiming to be political "fact checkers" that would disagree with this analysis.
Lying is a process that's very little understood by the public for whatever reason. Here's a brief explanation of how it works from first principles:
First, humans don't speak to "talk truth", as if we possess some collection of facts and communication were an interchange of these nuggets. More pointedly, speech is largely a mechanism to convince others to align with our interests through building rapport, making an argument, etc.
Second, given that, politicians are speaking to convince peeps of their own suitability as their representative. The words they choose are tools useful towards that self-interested end, and those words might include promises of virtues such as honesty.
Third, that rapport building is implemented here as identifying with the electorate, thus said virtues coincide with how the electorate sees itself, ostensibly as "honest" folk.
Fourth, to reinforce 1-3, notice from #1 though that folks aren't
truly honest, not nearly to the same degree as they believe their speech is used for. So really, this is more of game everyone incl. the politician plays, whereby everyone tries to convince everyone else of their virtues like honesty to advance interests. Thus "honesty" is pretty open to interpretation.
In sum, the degree that a person/politician can deviate from truth while maintain plausibility of those claims depends largely on the audience, ie their interpretation of what honest is. In Clinton's case, the centrist plays off conflicting constituent interests with careful wording designed to please everyone more than it displeases in aggregate. A weary political audience has some basic grasp that politicians use wording to maintain that plausibility, and realistically hopes to tip the scales to their favor. She has trouble for example with idealists who presumably see all career politicians as great liars. Then of course there's conservatives who naturally see everyone else as "liars". This is all pretty par for course in human behavior.
In contrast trump's main audience for the most part don't really care about the actual factuality of what's been said, because their interpretation of "honest" is more like "loyal", and trump's
their guy. Thus facts surround the wall, like whether it's even going to be built, as such are inconsequential. The key problem here is that Trump is in reality more the opposite of loyal, and as a born capitalist salesman is more than willing to auction some plebs to his counterparts downstream.
It's this disassociation which is particularly troublesome in politics, and trump is only the natural conclusion to a process designed to break down the importance of facts to honesty. You can see the same in british politics where much of the public were evidently "sick of the experts", so pleaded loyalty to idiots.
To be fair to conservatives, Obama has much of the same opportunist tendencies like appealing to progressives as "their guy", but fortunately only turned out to be a centrist as he sometimes claimed, too. With Trump, who the hell knows, the guy doesn't seem to have much competence other than lying to the plebs.