De la Espriella shakes Colombia: how he won the first round and what Cepeda needs to come back

Cepeda He also acknowledged on Monday that after verifications carried out by his campaign, They have not found evidence of irregularities to question the result of the first round. The candidate had joined President Gustavo Petro on Sunday night, who rejected the data released by the National Registry, the entity organizing the elections.

SEE ALSO: “The departure of Rodrigo Paz would be a catastrophe for Bolivia”: what the president can do after the repeal of Law 1341

The lawyer From Espriellaa outsider of the policy that promises a turn to the right based on security, a tough hand against crime and a change of course regarding the political project of Petergave the surprise in the first round by leading the pre-count with 43.74% of the votes.

While Cepedawho led the polls throughout the campaign, came in second place with 40.90% of the votes.

The disappointment was Paloma Valenciafrom the right-wing Uribista Democratic Center party, which reached only 6.92% of the vote and placed third.

This Monday, Cepeda publicly challenged De la Espriella to hold a debate ahead of the second round. The radical right candidate accepted the proposal, but set one condition: that Cepeda and President Petro first recognize the results of the first round.

De la Espriella maintained that he has no problem debating “in the face of the people,” but insisted that his rivals must stop questioning the electoral pre-count before sitting down face to face.

In the same response, De la Espriella called Cepeda a “coward.”

On Sunday night, during a speech to his supporters, Cepeda questioned the personal and professional career of De la Espriella, whom he described as a representative of “mafia fascism” and defined as a “swindler’s scammer.”

The harshness of these messages anticipates a three-week campaign for the second round marked by the polarization.

Why did De la Espriella win?

Patricia Muñoz Yiprofessor of political science at the Javeriana University of Bogotá, specialized in public opinion and political marketing, told The Commerce that the first place obtained by Abelardo de la Espriella It is a surprise, since previous polls showed Ivan Cepeda as favorite to lead the vote. Although the latest polls already showed a sustained growth of the radical right candidate, few anticipated that he would end up surpassing the candidate of the Historical Pact by more than 670,000 votes.

However, he assured that a comeback cannot be ruled out. Cepeda in the second round.

According to Yi, the main explanation for his victory is in De la Espriella’s ability to appropriate the conservative vote and anti-Petrist sentiment that exists in an important part of the Colombian electorate.

“Abelardo de la Espriella manages to appropriate that more conservative, more radical right sentiment and also captures the anti-Petrist sentiment of those who do not want the continuity of the policies of the Historical Pact. “He captured the right-wing vote that initially supported Paloma Valencia”signeither.

“That transfer of support was key to his victory in the first round,” he added.

The collapse of Paloma Valencia

The expert consideredeither that the candidate of Defenders of the Homeland absorbed a good part of the support that was initially inclined towards Paloma Valenciacandidate supported by traditional Uribism.

“A good part of Paloma Valencia’s voters ended up seduced by De la Espriella’s more confrontational speech. That vote ended up in the hands of Abelardo and led him to pass first in the first round,” he stated.

In Muñoz’s opinion, While Valencia tried to get closer to the center electorate, De la Espriella consolidated a strategy aimed at mobilizing the most conservative voters and critics of Gustavo Petro’s government.

Was Petro and Cepeda’s refusal to recognize the pre-count legitimate?

Asked about the initial decision of President Petro and Cepeda not to immediately recognize the preliminary results, the analyst was skeptical regarding the questions raised by the ruling party.

“I would be inclined to think that it is a political strategy in the face of an unexpected defeat”he responded.

Muñoz recalled that the electoral process was accompanied by national and international observation organizations and maintained that During the day there were no significant complaints of irregularities.

“What we have heard from the observation missions is that the process has been organized, transparent and clear. On election day, no relevant complaints were presented at the voting stations,” Indian.

In that sense, He warned that subsequent complaints could affect citizen confidence in institutions.

“These claims are worrying because they sow distrust and tend to delegitimize the results, but we believe that it is more a voice to generate political tension than evidence of irregularities,” held.

Who comes with the advantage to the second round?

Although he recognizes that De la Espriella has an advantage, Muñoz considers that The race is far from over.

“The Historical Pact is not defeated at all”he emphasized.

The analyst recalled that Cepeda obtained nearly 9.7 million votes and maintains important strengths in strategic regions such as the Caribbean Coast, the Pacific region and Bogotá, territories that concentrate a significant part of the national electorate.

On the other hand, he pointed out that a part of Paloma Valencia’s voters could lean towards De la Espriella, although he warned that The accessions of the leaders do not guarantee an automatic transfer of votes.

“The candidates do not own the votes. Some citizens will follow the guidelines of their leaders, but many others will make a different decision, vote blank or even abstain”he explained.

“That is why the accessions will be important, but not enough. Both campaigns will have to look for new voters and expand their support base”, he anticipated.

The message that the polls left

For Muñoz, The main political conclusion of the first round is the strengthening of polarization in Colombia.

“What we saw was a scenario of clear polarization between two political forces that have tended to be located at the extremes. The center options seemed to be diluted”he stated.

The analyst considered that The success of De la Espriella and Cepeda shows that it was the most confrontational speeches that managed to connect with voters.

“What ended up influencing voters’ voting intentions were the most radical speeches. There is an anti-Petrist and anti-government sentiment that has settled in the country and that ended up being relevant when it came to voting,” he concluded.