On 8th November, Americans will descend en masse to polling stations to choose their next president. While we’ve painstakingly dissected the policies, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, less attention has been paid to the external elements. What do the sartorial choices of candidates tell us about them?

In politics, where image is king, politicians try hard to use their clothing as symbolic shorthand for that elusive political creature, values. This election, both Trump and Clinton have succeeded in cultivating distinctive visual styles that say interesting and sometimes contradictory things about their campaigns.

The classic Trump look is a dark, boxy suit with a distinctly corporate feel, accompanied by a tie (typically in loud, Republican red). By wearing business suits, Trump is selling two messages: first, that he is ready to be CEO of America; secondly, that he is a materially successful embodiment of the American Dream. Trump’s suiting is also a nod to Ronald Reagan’s personal style: he wants to suggest that he too can lead the USA out of decline and into glorious capitalist prosperity.

Yet there is an inherent tension between Trump’s expensive power suits and his attempt to appeal to economically marginalised groups. Cue the marketing genius of the Trump hat emblazoned with the now immortal slogan ‘Make America Great Again’. The rope cap has strong associations with blue-collar America, allowing Trump to broaden his appeal. By taking advantage of existing associations between clothing and class, politicians can inhabit a space of nebulous identity shaped by the external trappings of clothing.

Though likewise besuited, Bernie Sanders cuts a very different figure – rumpled, even dishevelled, Sanders dresses in the clothes of the everyman.  Yet despite this, he makes use of fashion’s historical connotations in the same way as Trump, offering young voters an opportunity to share in a vicarious nostalgia for the fantasy of a more innocent and more authentic political era.

More carefully styled than Sanders, Hillary Clinton is well-known for her pantsuits – her Twitter describes her as a self-confessed “aficionado”. As First Lady, Clinton wore more conventionally feminine clothing – so why did Clinton gravitate towards the pantsuit? Is it a powerful feminist subversion of the traditional suit, or a capitulation to a male-dominated clothing paradigm? This is a difficult question to answer, not least because Clinton’s own attitude towards clothing has seemed remarkably ambivalent.

That said, Clinton’s outfits do suggest a keen consciousness of the gendered nature of clothes. Her embrace of the pantsuit, which exists in a ambiguously androgynous zone, declares that she has moved beyond clichéd political narratives about gender. While Trump’s suits are very much about actively conveying a message, Clinton’s pantsuits do the opposite. Instead of drawing attention, they are paradoxically silent, allowing Clinton’s own words to be heard above the media’s usual clamour about famous women’s clothing.

Fashion is its own visual language, a set of actively changing symbols. However, image is often illusory and fashion’s dynamism makes it a dangerous image tool. A wolf in sheep’s clothing? We’ll have to wait and see.