With U.S. economic predictions last Friday reporting sluggish and historically low growth, it could have some interesting implications for the ongoing presidential election.

In a race featuring two drastically different economic platforms, the reported 1.2 percent growth rate in GDP this past week may pose some interesting questions for the two candidates.

The economy and economic predictions, especially numbers released in the summertime, have a disproportionate effect on presidential elections, reports the Wall Street Journal.

Experts say these lackluster projections could hinder Clinton’s campaign, as it has substantially praised the work of President Barrack Obama in the economy. Researches say that voters can hold economic performance against the incumbent party during elections, reports the Wall Street Journal.

The state of the economy has played a vital role in the past three elections where an incumbent president is leaving office, namely in 1988, 2000 and 2008. The results, however, were very strange, reports the Wall Street Journal.

George H. W. Bush, in the 1988 election, was helped by the strong economic performance of the Reagan Administration. Al Gore, in 2000, ran under a strong economy but failed to secure the White House. And in 2008, following the housing bubble, banking crisis, massive job layoffs and many other negative economic indicators, then-Sen. Barrack Obama defeated Sen. John McCain.

With GDP growth just over 1 percent this quarter (historically in the U.S. we see a growth-rate between 2 and 6 percent), a burgeoning labor market and increased consumer confidence, it isn’t entirely clear how these factors will come together to affect the election results.

Ray Fair, a Yale professor who extensively studies the impact of the economy on elections, stated recently that “the economy in terms of the growth rate of GDP is clearly not a plus for the Democrats in 2016.” Fair added that “tepid output,” when combined with the “electorate’s tendency to vote out a two-term incumbent party,” are not favorable to Mrs. Clinton this election cycle, reports the Wall Street Journal.

Follow Robert on Twitter. Send tips to [email protected]

Copyright 2016 Daily Caller News Foundation