Every four years, US citizens decide who they want as their Commander-in-Chief. Generally speaking, voting patterns have long been along partisan lines; if you’re red (Republican) you vote red, if you’re blue (Democrat) you vote blue. Conservatives and liberals usually have an easy choice. But this year, does the same kind of choice exist?

For some Americans, this time around presents a chance for radical change in the shape of Donald J. Trump. He’s not just their choice, he’s their Messianic figure. It doesn’t matter if he’s been compared to a frustrated Austrian with a bad temper in the 1930s, that he’s a greedy entrepreneur with a questionable tan and an extreme set of chauvinistic, racist and unfounded values. He’s the Republican nominee, and most Republicans will vote for him.

It’s not just Republicans, though. Some Democrats and many Independents will as well. Why? Most people will point to things like a failing economy, disappointment at Obamacare, mass immigration, the Iraq War, the continued terror of jihad in the western world and of course nostalgia towards a more pleasant time.

In addition, or despite, this Trump’s best chance comes from the weakness of his own opponent, Hillary Clinton like an X Factor contestant who isn’t quite good enough but comes back for more, that bit more polished and prepared, pleading with the judges to give her another chance.

Unlike Trump, Hillary has been around the political block. Yet with all her experience in the Senate and as Secretary of State, Hillary’s résumé has failed to woo the American electorate.

In 2008, whilst undoubtedly the better candidate over Republican opponent John McCain, Barack Obama benefitted from being the first African American nominee, not least from his ability to mobilise the African American electorate.

Yet relatively little attention has been paid to the prospect of Hillary Clinton being the first woman to serve as President. She hasn’t been able to mobilise women in anywhere nearly the same way.

Both Clinton and Trump have echoes of the literary character J. Gatsby, who tirelessly aimed to win respect by either flaunting his wealth or his host of worldly experience – by his representation of the American dream. But it wasn’t by his own virtue that led him to success. In reality it was his rather ignoble activity of bootlegging at a time of Prohibition that got him to where he was. Clinton and Trump have done their own kind of bootlegging, hoping that people won’t notice or care much.

However, sometimes they need other people. In The Great Gatsby, there remains a place known as ‘the valley of ashes’. It’s a place where ordinary Americans struggle on; a place where the lavish and rich only wander when they want something. In the novel this is sex, but parallels can be drawn to an election campaign where candidates promise anything and everything to the ordinary American to get their vote. Whether or not they actually care is irrelevant.

The whole saga has pierced the veil of the reality of the US political system. Out of the 318.9 million people inhabiting ‘the land of opportunity’, there are just two viable candidates. Americans are left with a political opportunist and a mad man. That’s their choice, if it is a choice at all. And unlike Brexit, there isn’t a single thing that can be done to reverse their decision.

Whilst Hillary continues to lead in the polls by around three points, we should all be concerned about tomorrow’s result – whatever it is. As the saying goes, ‘when America sneezes, Britain catches a cold’. And we won’t even have a choice.