Voters moved late, moved decisively, in directions nobody had mapped
En una jornada electoral que desafió todos los pronósticos, el abogado Abelardo De la Espriella emergió como el ganador de la primera vuelta presidencial colombiana, desplazando a candidatos que los analistas consideraban favoritos y revelando una brecha profunda entre las encuestas y el sentir real del electorado. Su mensaje de mano dura en seguridad, heredero del uribismo, encontró eco en millones de colombianos que sienten que el gobierno de Petro los ha defraudado. Ahora, en una segunda vuelta contra el senador Iván Cepeda, Colombia se enfrenta a una elección que no es solo entre dos candidatos, sino entre dos visiones irreconciliables del país que quiere ser.
- Ninguna encuesta lo anticipó: De la Espriella, que apenas aparecía en los sondeos, se impuso en primera vuelta y dejó a analistas y partidos recalculando todo lo que creían saber sobre el electorado colombiano.
- La campaña de Paloma Valencia, respaldada por Uribe y con más de tres millones de votos en la consulta previa, se desmoronó en el momento decisivo, y sus votantes migraron masivamente hacia De la Espriella.
- La coalición de derecha que se forma alrededor del ganador ya muestra fracturas: el candidato a vicepresidente de Valencia, Juan Daniel Oviedo, se negó a sumarse al respaldo y acusó a la campaña de De la Espriella de ser machista y homofóbica.
- Sergio Fajardo, con cerca de un millón de votos de centro, se posiciona como árbitro del resultado final, mientras Roy Barreras llama a sumar al menos tres millones de votos del centro hacia Cepeda.
- La segunda vuelta no se definirá por ideología pura, sino por la capacidad de cada candidato de ensamblar una coalición en un país profundamente fragmentado.
La elección presidencial colombiana del domingo produjo uno de los resultados más inesperados en la historia reciente del país. Abelardo De la Espriella, abogado y líder del movimiento Defensores de la Patria, ganó la primera vuelta en un resultado que ninguna encuesta había anticipado, forzando una segunda vuelta contra el senador Iván Cepeda y dejando a la clase política tratando de entender qué había fallado en sus cálculos.
El camino de De la Espriella al primer lugar se construyó sobre un mensaje sin ambigüedades: seguridad dura, rechazo al gobierno de Petro y una apropiación directa del lenguaje uribista. Esa apuesta, que parecía arriesgada en un espacio que también ocupaba Paloma Valencia —candidata con el respaldo institucional de Uribe y tres millones de votos en la consulta previa—, terminó siendo la ganadora. La estrategia de Valencia de presentarse como puente entre la derecha y el centro se derrumbó, y una parte significativa de sus votantes se trasladó a De la Espriella en los días finales. Tras conocerse los resultados, Valencia anunció su respaldo para la segunda vuelta, describiendo a De la Espriella como el único dique contra lo que llamó el comunismo de Cepeda y Petro.
Sin embargo, la coalición que se forma no es uniforme. Juan Daniel Oviedo, el candidato a vicepresidente de Valencia, rechazó sumarse al respaldo y acusó públicamente a la campaña de De la Espriella de ser sucia, machista y homofóbica, anunciando que daría a conocer su posición el 3 de junio. Las tensiones internas de la derecha quedaron expuestas en el mismo momento de su triunfo.
Del otro lado, el panorama también es complejo. Sergio Fajardo, con aproximadamente un millón de votos de centro, se presentó de inmediato como una fuerza decisiva, insinuando que su respaldo podría inclinar la balanza. Roy Barreras, que obtuvo apenas 14.000 votos en la izquierda, respaldó a Cepeda y lo instó a buscar los votos del centro. La segunda vuelta colombiana se perfila, entonces, no como un duelo ideológico limpio, sino como una carrera por reensamblar los fragmentos de un electorado que ya demostró que no sigue los guiones que le escriben.
The Colombian presidential election delivered a shock on Sunday that no pollster saw coming. Abelardo De la Espriella, a lawyer leading a movement called Defensores de la Patria, won the first round outright—a result that upended months of prediction and exposed how little the country's political establishment actually understands its own voters.
Every major survey heading into the vote had pointed toward two possibilities: either the government-backed senator Iván Cepeda would advance, or the businessman candidate would gain ground. De la Espriella barely registered in those calculations. Yet when the ballots were counted, he had secured first place, forcing a runoff against Cepeda and leaving the political map redrawn in ways that still seemed impossible to many observers on Monday morning.
De la Espriella's path to victory was built on unambiguous ground. He staked his campaign on the hardest edge of the right, a position that should have been crowded. Paloma Valencia, the other major opposition figure challenging President Gustavo Petro's government, had won the primary known as the Gran Consulta por Colombia with more than three million votes. She carried the backing of Álvaro Uribe Vélez and his Centro Democrático party—the institutional weight of Colombia's traditional right. Valencia had tried to position herself as a centrist alternative, a bridge between the right and the middle. That strategy collapsed. As her campaign weakened, a substantial portion of her supporters made a late calculation: they would move their votes to De la Espriella instead. Valencia herself, after the results came in, announced she would support him in the runoff, calling him the only barrier against what she characterized as communism and neocommunism represented by Cepeda and Petro.
De la Espriella had seized on a security-first message that resonated with voters exhausted by the Petro government's first years in office. He borrowed the language and framework of Uribismo—the hardline security doctrine associated with former president Uribe—and made it central to his pitch. Stronger action against criminal groups. Tougher governance. A rejection of what he framed as the government's softness. That message found an audience among Colombians who felt the administration had failed them.
But Valencia's coalition fractured in ways that extended beyond her own decision. Her vice-presidential running mate, Juan Daniel Oviedo, an economist and openly gay candidate, refused to follow her endorsement. He accused De la Espriella's campaign of being dirty, machista, and homophobic—charges that reflected real tensions within the right-wing coalition now forming. Oviedo said he would announce his position on June 3rd, signaling he was not ready to fall in line.
Two other candidates remained in play for the runoff. Gustavo Petro's government had backed Cepeda, but the senator now faced a second-round contest he had not been positioned to win. Sergio Fajardo, a former mayor and centrist, had captured roughly one million votes in the first round—a bloc he immediately characterized as decisive. Fajardo suggested those votes could determine the outcome between De la Espriella and Cepeda, and he positioned himself as a kingmaker whose support would matter. Roy Barreras, a former senator who had run on the left, finished near the bottom with just over 14,000 votes and immediately endorsed Cepeda, urging him to pursue the roughly three million votes he believed the center had cast on Sunday.
What emerged from the rubble of the first round was a Colombian electorate that had rejected the script written for it. The polls had been wrong. The conventional wisdom about where voters would go had been wrong. De la Espriella, an unlikely figure weeks before, now stood as the frontrunner in a runoff that would determine whether the country moved further right or held its ground on the left. The second round would be decided not by ideology alone but by which candidate could assemble the fragmented pieces of a deeply divided nation.
Citas Notables
This million votes is important to define the fate of our country. The voice of our people will be heard because Colombia's future is in our hands.— Sergio Fajardo, after first-round results
As Paloma Valencia, the woman who wanted to be your president, I announce my support for doctor Abelardo de la Espriella.— Paloma Valencia, endorsing De la Espriella for the runoff
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
How did De la Espriella win when every poll said he couldn't?
He occupied space that looked crowded but wasn't. Valencia had the institutional backing, but she tried to be everything to everyone—centrist, opposition, Uribista. When that failed, her voters had nowhere else to go on the right except to him.
So Valencia's loss was his gain?
Partly. But he also won on his own terms. He made security and toughness the center of the conversation, and that message landed with people angry at Petro's government. He didn't try to be moderate.
What about the million votes Fajardo got? Doesn't that matter?
It matters enormously for the runoff. Fajardo is now the hinge. He can decide whether Cepeda or De la Espriella wins. But Fajardo hasn't said where those votes go yet.
And Valencia endorsed De la Espriella immediately?
She did. But her own running mate refused to follow her. Oviedo called the campaign homophobic and machista. That split shows the right isn't actually unified—it just looks that way because De la Espriella won.
What does this tell us about Colombian voters?
That they're unpredictable in ways the establishment doesn't understand. The pollsters, the strategists, the parties—they all got it wrong. Voters moved late, moved decisively, and moved in directions nobody had mapped.