The latest poll by AtlasIntel for Semana magazine introduces a key element in Colombia’s 2026 presidential race: leading in the first round does not guarantee final victory. Although Iván Cepeda clearly tops initial voting intention, runoff scenarios point to a significant reshaping of the political landscape, where Abelardo de La Espriella and Paloma Valencia would emerge as frontrunners.
The survey, conducted between April 6 and April 9 with a sample of 3,616 respondents using Random Digital Recruitment (RDR) methodology, offers not only a snapshot of the current electoral moment but also insight into structural patterns in voter behavior across Colombia. With a margin of error of 2% and a confidence level of 95%, the findings should be read as a solid trend—though not a definitive outcome—in a dynamic political environment where campaigns, debates, and alliances may still shift the trajectory of the race.
Beyond the numbers, the poll highlights a central tension in contemporary Colombian politics: the coexistence of a clear first-round leader with strong resistance in runoff scenarios. This paradox suggests that the country remains deeply divided and that the election will not be decided solely by ideological alignment, but by each campaign’s ability to build a broader consensus in the decisive stage.
Cepeda leads the first round but faces an electoral ceiling
First-round results show a significant advantage for Iván Cepeda, who reaches 38.7% of valid votes. This figure positions him as the candidate most likely to advance to the runoff, consolidating support among voters aligned with the Pacto Histórico. However, this lead also signals a potential ceiling. In two-round electoral systems like Colombia’s, a first-round result below 50% often indicates the need to build broader coalitions to secure a final victory. In this case, Cepeda’s numbers point to a strong base—but not necessarily an expansive one.
In second place is Abelardo de la Espriella with 27.8%, followed by Paloma Valencia at 23.4%. The relatively narrow gap between them suggests that the race for second place—and the right to face Cepeda—remains open and could be shaped by short-term developments in the final weeks of campaigning.
Meanwhile, Sergio Fajardo lags far behind with just 5.1%, reflecting a structural weakness of the political center at this stage. This result not only limits his chances of reaching the runoff but also diminishes his role as a potential kingmaker in redistributing votes. Further down the list, candidates such as Claudia López and others fail to surpass the poll’s margin of error, confirming a strong concentration of voter preference around three leading figures. This dynamic reinforces the perception of an already polarized contest from the outset.
The second-round effect makes visible how strategic voting transforms the race
The most revealing aspect of the poll lies in the runoff scenarios, where voter preferences shift significantly. This behavior reflects a pattern of strategic voting, in which voters tend to support the candidate most likely to defeat their least preferred option.
In a hypothetical runoff between Iván Cepeda and Abelardo de La Espriella, the latter would secure 48.8% of the vote compared to Cepeda’s 39.8%, opening a gap of nearly nine percentage points. This suggests De La Espriella has a strong ability to attract voters beyond his initial base. A similar pattern appears in a matchup between Cepeda and Paloma Valencia. Valencia would receive 47.1%, while Cepeda would reach 39.6%, a difference of 7.5 percentage points. This indicates that, regardless of which candidate reaches the runoff, there is a clear tendency for votes to converge around alternatives perceived as opposing the current administration.
In contrast, a scenario between Cepeda and Sergio Fajardo shows a much tighter race: 38.3% versus 37.4%, effectively a statistical tie. This suggests that the centrist candidate struggles to fully capture anti-Cepeda sentiment, limiting his competitiveness in a decisive round.
Additionally, in a hypothetical contest between De La Espriella and Fajardo, the former would obtain 42.4%, while Fajardo would remain at 20.9%. This wide margin highlights not only the center’s weakness but also the strength of candidates who position themselves more clearly on key national issues.
Demographic factors that could reshape voting in Colombia
The poll’s regional and demographic breakdown provides critical insight into voter behavior. In the first round, Iván Cepeda leads in the Caribbean and Pacific regions, areas historically receptive to social change narratives. Meanwhile, Abelardo de La Espriella dominates in the central region, while Paloma Valencia performs strongest in the Amazon and Orinoquía regions. This distribution points to a geographically fragmented electorate that could become even more pronounced in the runoff.
In terms of gender, Cepeda shows stronger support among men, while De La Espriella and Valencia connect more effectively with female voters in runoff scenarios. This dynamic is particularly significant given the growing electoral influence of women in recent elections.
By age group, Cepeda dominates among younger voters, reflecting generational alignment with his political message. However, his rivals perform better among older populations, which historically show higher turnout rates—an important factor in second-round elections.
These trends intensify in runoff scenarios. In a Cepeda–De La Espriella matchup, Cepeda would maintain strength in the Caribbean and Pacific, while De La Espriella would dominate in central Colombia and remain competitive in peripheral regions. In a Cepeda–Valencia scenario, Valencia’s territorial advantage would expand across several regions, reinforcing her competitiveness.
The role of Petro’s approval ratings in shaping voter decisions
A key factor shaping the poll is public perception of the current administration led by Gustavo Petro. According to the survey, 57.2% of respondents disapprove of Petro’s leadership, compared to 40.5% who approve. Additionally, 48.8% rate his administration as poor or very poor. This level of disapproval appears to directly influence runoff scenarios. Candidates like De La Espriella and Valencia, perceived as alternatives to the current government, are able to capture a broader protest vote that extends beyond ideological lines.
Moreover, both candidates are seen as more capable of handling key issues such as security, drug trafficking, fiscal balance, healthcare, and international relations. These areas align with voters’ top concerns, reinforcing their advantage in head-to-head matchups.
By contrast, Cepeda faces the challenge of distancing himself from the administration’s negative perception while maintaining the support of his political base—a complex balancing act in a context where government approval plays a decisive role.
The unanswered questions around undecided voters’ turnout and future alliances
While the poll offers a detailed overview, it also leaves important questions unanswered. One of the least explored aspects is the behavior of undecided voters, whose impact could be decisive in a close election.
It also does not fully address potential turnout levels, a historically critical factor in Colombia. Variations in voter participation could significantly alter outcomes, particularly in a runoff where mobilization is key. Another missing element is the role of political alliances. Between the first and second rounds, campaigns are likely to form strategic agreements that could reshape vote distribution. In this sense, coalition-building capacity will be essential.
Finally, the poll does not measure the potential impact of campaign events such as debates, controversies, or shifts in the public agenda—factors that often influence voter decisions in the final stretch.
The picture painted by AtlasIntel is one of an open race with consistent underlying trends. Iván Cepeda leads in the first round but faces challenges in expanding his support in the runoff. Meanwhile, Abelardo De La Espriella and Paloma Valencia appear better positioned to capture strategic votes and capitalize on dissatisfaction with the current administration.
Ultimately, the poll suggests that Colombia’s 2026 presidential election will be decided not just by initial preferences but by each campaign’s ability to interpret voter concerns and build broad coalitions in an increasingly polarized environment. Colombia is thus heading toward a contest where the outcome will depend less on who leads at the start and more on who can successfully mobilize voters, forge alliances, and respond to an electorate that is both demanding and fluid.