The pollsters win here, because candidates were making decisions based on what the polls said
En el umbral de una decisión histórica, Colombia emerge de su primera vuelta presidencial con dos candidatos —Abelardo De la Espriella e Iván Cepeda— separados por apenas 600.000 votos, cifra suficientemente estrecha para mantener viva la incertidumbre hasta el 21 de junio. Lo que el resultado revela no es solo una preferencia electoral, sino una nación profundamente dividida entre visiones opuestas del orden, la paz y la legitimidad del poder. En el fondo, la pregunta que Colombia deberá responder no es solo quién gobernará, sino si el proceso mismo de elegir puede sostenerse como acto de confianza colectiva.
- Con solo 600.000 votos de diferencia, la carrera hacia la presidencia entra a su fase más tensa e impredecible, sin margen para la complacencia de ningún lado.
- El presidente Petro rechazó los resultados preliminares alegando fraude, una acusación que los analistas califican de peligrosa en un país emocionalmente encendido y con historia de violencia política.
- Los candidatos eliminados —Barreras, López, Uribe— se alinearon con rapidez sorprendente, reorganizando el tablero político en horas, aunque el respaldo de López a Cepeda fue leído más como voto de rechazo que de convicción.
- El asesinato de Miguel Uribe Turbay durante la campaña dejó una herida abierta que tiñe el ambiente electoral de una gravedad que va más allá de las cifras.
- La abstención parece ceder terreno, sugiriendo que la segunda vuelta podría convocar más ciudadanos que la primera —señal de que la polarización, lejos de agotar, está movilizando.
La primera vuelta presidencial del 31 de mayo no deparó grandes sorpresas para quienes seguían las encuestas: Abelardo De la Espriella e Iván Cepeda se enfrentarán el 21 de junio, separados por cerca de 600.000 votos. Un margen estrecho que mantiene la carrera abierta y los nervios en tensión.
Al día siguiente, el programa 'El Caribe Decide' de El Heraldo reunió a analistas para interpretar los resultados. La conclusión más inmediata fue que las encuestadoras habían acertado: prácticamente todas anticipaban una segunda vuelta entre estos dos hombres, y así ocurrió. El historiador Alejandro Blanco señaló que varios candidatos habían tomado decisiones estratégicas basándose en esos sondeos, y la realidad les dio la razón.
Lo que más llamó la atención fue la velocidad con que los candidatos eliminados declararon sus apoyos. Roy Barreras, Claudia López y el expresidente Álvaro Uribe se pronunciaron con rapidez. El respaldo de López a Cepeda fue especialmente significativo: Blanco lo interpretó como un voto crítico, no entusiasta, frente a un presidente Petro con quien López mantiene distancia.
La economista Lucía Avendaño advirtió que la polarización es hoy más intensa que en 2022. 'La carga emocional es muy alta', dijo, 'y quien pierda cargará emociones que no son necesariamente positivas'. A eso se suma la preocupante decisión del presidente Petro de rechazar los conteos preliminares alegando fraude —una postura que De la Espriella había anticipado semanas antes. Blanco la calificó de riesgosa: 'Puede generar violencia y mucha más desconfianza en un clima ya cargado'. El columnista Óscar Montes fue más directo: nunca había escuchado a un presidente cuestionar la transparencia de un sistema electoral que también lo eligió a él.
Los dos finalistas encarnan proyectos distintos. De la Espriella, con un perfil disruptivo —exartista, emprendedor, ajeno al establecimiento— conecta con votantes jóvenes que buscan una ruptura cultural y política. Cepeda, en cambio, lleva como estandarte su papel en los procesos de paz, desde los acuerdos con las FARC en 2016 hasta la política de 'paz total' de Petro. Pero ese mismo legado se ha convertido en lastre: la crisis de seguridad del país lo persigue como corresponsable. Con tres semanas por delante, ambos candidatos no solo disputarán votos —disputarán el significado de sus propias trayectorias.
Colombia's first round of presidential voting on May 31st produced a result that surprised almost no one who had been paying attention to the polls. Abelardo De la Espriella and Iván Cepeda will face each other on June 21st for the presidency, separated in the initial count by roughly 600,000 votes—a margin narrow enough to keep the race genuinely uncertain heading into the final sprint.
The day after the election, analysts gathered for a broadcast called "El Caribe Decide" to parse what the results meant and what might come next. The conversation, hosted by El Heraldo's director Erika Fontalvo and featuring political columnist Óscar Montes, historian and political scientist Alejandro Blanco, and economist Lucía Avendaño, kept circling back to a single observation: the pollsters had done their job. Most had predicted a runoff between these two men, and that's exactly what happened. "The pollsters win here," Blanco said, "because many candidates were making decisions based on what the polls said, and in fact, that's what we got." Avendaño agreed, noting that despite periodic criticism of polling firms, there had been broad consensus that Colombia would need a second round—no first-round winner was ever really in serious contention.
What struck the analysts most was the speed with which losing candidates declared their allegiances. Roy Barreras moved quickly. So did Claudia López, and former president Álvaro Uribe. López's choice was particularly notable: she was backing Cepeda, not the incumbent president Gustavo Petro, which Blanco read as a critical vote rather than an enthusiastic one. The political landscape was reorganizing itself in real time, with little hesitation or ambiguity from the major players.
The narrow margin between De la Espriella and Cepeda echoed the structure of Colombia's 2022 presidential election—a close contest between candidates representing different poles. Both analysts expected the pattern to hold through the runoff, though they noted something else worth watching: abstention appeared to be declining, suggesting that more people might actually vote in the second round than had in the first. The polarization, though, was sharper than it had been four years earlier. "The emotional charge is very high," Avendaño observed, "and the loser will be carrying emotions that aren't necessarily positive."
President Petro's refusal to accept the preliminary vote count—his insistence that fraud had occurred—troubled the analysts. Blanco called it dangerous, a campaign tactic that risked generating violence in a country already emotionally raw. De la Espriella had predicted weeks earlier that Petro would reject the results, and now that prediction had come true. "It's a very risky move," Blanco said. "It can generate violence and much more distrust in a climate that's already emotionally charged." Montes went further, questioning whether a sitting president should ever cast doubt on electoral transparency. "I've never heard a president of the Republic questioning the electoral system," he said. "When Petro talks about alleged fraud, he's exposing not just state incompetence but casting a shadow over elections that have been transparent—including the ones where he himself was elected mayor of Bogotá."
The two candidates heading to the runoff represented starkly different political styles. De la Espriella, Avendaño argued, was genuinely disruptive—not just politically but culturally. He had been a singer, launched his own liquor brand, and seemed to connect with younger voters precisely because he stood outside the traditional Colombian political establishment. Cepeda, by contrast, carried the weight of his signature achievement: he was the architect of peace negotiations, first with the FARC in 2016 and then with other armed groups under Petro's "total peace" policy. That same achievement, Blanco noted, had become a liability. "A large part of his narrative is being the architect of total peace, so he's also responsible for the security crisis." With three weeks until the runoff, both men would be fighting not just for votes but to control what their own records meant.
Citas Notables
The pollsters win here, because many candidates were making decisions based on what the polls said, and in fact, that's what we got.— Alejandro Blanco, historian and political scientist
I've never heard a president of the Republic questioning the electoral system. When Petro talks about alleged fraud, he's exposing not just state incompetence but casting a shadow over elections that have been transparent.— Óscar Montes, El Heraldo columnist
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why did the pollsters matter so much in this election? They're usually just background noise.
Because in Colombia right now, candidates are making real decisions based on what polls say about their viability. If a poll shows you can't win, you might drop out or shift strategy. The polls predicted a runoff, and that's exactly what happened, so they got the shape of the race right.
But the margin was only 600,000 votes. That's not a landslide. Why are people confident about anything?
Exactly. It's tight, which is why the second round matters so much. But the analysts saw something else—the losing candidates didn't hesitate. They picked sides immediately. That speed and clarity suggested the political elite already understood the terrain.
What's the danger in Petro rejecting the preliminary count?
He's a sitting president casting doubt on electoral transparency in a country that's already deeply polarized and emotionally charged. If people lose faith in the system itself, you get violence. And he's doing it strategically, as part of his campaign.
So De la Espriella is winning because he's different?
He's winning because he's genuinely outside the traditional system. He's been a singer, a businessman, a brand. Young voters see him as not part of the old political machine. Cepeda is tied to peace negotiations—which should be an asset but has become a liability because people blame him for security problems.
Is abstention actually going down?
Yes, which surprised the analysts. They expected more people to vote in the runoff than voted in the first round. That suggests genuine engagement, even in a polarized climate.
What happens in the next three weeks?
Both candidates will be fighting to define what they represent and what their opponents represent. De la Espriella will lean into disruption and newness. Cepeda will try to rebuild the coalition around peace and stability. And Petro will be watching from the sidelines, trying to influence the outcome while his credibility on electoral integrity takes hits.