Campaign Strategies

With less than two months to go before the elections, and with a series of polls that generate more uncertainty than certainty, all campaigns have kicked into gear and are ready to face the final stretch of the presidential race. It is in this decisive stage that each candidate clings to a carefully designed strategy, and every decision becomes part of a meticulous political calculation. Analyzing these electoral tactics allows us to understand the state of each campaign, recognize their strengths, and, above all, identify their main weaknesses. What is the strategy behind each of the main presidential campaigns? What lies behind each decision? Are they working?

Abelardo De La Espriella

In recent weeks, De La Espriella’s campaign has focused on two strategic axes: presenting himself as a moderate and positioning himself as a serious presidential option. What initially propelled him to the top of the polls were precisely his extremist positions and his theatrical, irreverent personality. However, these same traits have prevented him from continuing to grow. Abelardo appears to have plateaued and knows that hardline rhetoric and confrontation with petrismo are not enough to win.

Now, De La Espriella portrays himself as an outsider unwilling to make deals with traditional politicians, arguing that his serious and technical profile is the responsible answer to the country’s problems. This is despite the fact that he previously sought alliances with those same politicians and only adopted this new stance after being rejected. The message is clear: as if by magic, the caricature-like candidate who wanted to “tear the left apart” has disappeared, replaced by a rigorous and moderate figure. Sometimes reality does not align with fiction.

Sergio Fajardo and Claudia López

At first glance, it may seem unfair to group two candidates together, but this is less about bias and more about practicality due to how similar their campaigns are. Both Fajardo and Claudia are centrists, draw on Mockus and the Green Wave as symbols, and are likely to perform very poorly in the first round. If the polls agree on anything, it is that both are closer to blank votes than to the third-place contender. While there remains a significant share of undecided voters, it is naive to believe they will suddenly rally behind either campaign at the last minute.

Beyond the optimism they display in media appearances and their overly hopeful messaging, it is hard to believe that two politicians with such experience still genuinely consider victory plausible. This helps explain their return to core themes, education for Fajardo and anti-corruption for Claudia, in an effort not to lose their remaining supporters. Despite their efforts, the reality is that on May 31 they will not be fighting to reach the runoff, but rather to surpass the vote threshold required for reimbursement.

Paloma Valencia

Paloma Valencia’s campaign has been the most dynamic since the legislative elections, largely due to her choice of vice president. And it is precisely Juan Daniel Oviedo who represents both the campaign’s potential gains and its political challenges. Paloma is trying to strike a difficult balance: not alienating her right-wing base while continuing to attract centrist voters who see no viable options in Fajardo or Claudia. The problem is that this creates ideological contradictions that both she and Oviedo choose to ignore.

The campaign’s recent success could also become its biggest challenge moving forward. While the coalition brought an initial boost, it also complicates efforts to expand toward the center without losing the right. These ideological juggling acts leave Paloma with a difficult choice: retain right-wing voters, who might otherwise shift to De La Espriella, or continue gaining ground in a leaderless center searching for viable alternatives.

Iván Cepeda

This is the most peculiar campaign. Cepeda refuses to participate in debates, appears only sporadically in the media, and his vice-presidential pick did not represent any significant political alliance. It is the only campaign that can afford not to constantly engage with voters, for three reasons. First, they have virtually secured a spot in the runoff, allowing them to relax while others must work harder. Second, Cepeda is not a particularly charismatic candidate, so it makes sense to limit his exposure. Finally, and most importantly, the president and the government are campaigning on his behalf.

Cepeda’s candidacy is sustained by the political backing of the president, Gustavo Petro, who is setting a new precedent in which public officials not only participate in politics but do so openly, aggressively, and without restraint. This is unsurprising, as the defining trait of this government has been to bypass institutional norms and clash with other public bodies. Petro is using the presidency as a campaign platform and managing the state budget to favor Cepeda. The support is so evident that he has even attempted to boost De La Espriella politically through the wiretapping controversy, knowing he would be the most advantageous opponent for Cepeda in a runoff. It will be difficult to see Iván Cepeda actively campaigning, as the president is effectively doing the work for him.