Close this search box.

Hartman Switches to Run for New PA-10

Christina Hartman, who originally announced a run for the old 16th Congressional district, announced she will instead challenge Congressman Scott Perry in the new 10th Congressional district.

“I’m running for Congress because central Pennsylvania’s economy isn’t working the way it should. Paychecks aren’t keeping up with the cost of living for too many of our friends and neighbors, and we need a new approach that grows the economy and helps workers get better jobs, better wages, and better skills. But Scott Perry and Republicans in Congress are adding to the economic burdens of middle class families by raising the cost of health care and education and increasing their tax burden,” Hartman said.  

According to LNP Hartman withdrew her name from consideration for the endorsement of the Lancaster Democratic Party in the race to challenge Congressman Lloyd Smucker.  

The new 10th district includes northern York county, part of Cumberland county, and all of Dauphin county.  

State Auditor General Eugene DePasquale announced earlier this week that he would not run for the seat.

17 Responses

  1. Always interesting to see candidates switch like this. I get the threat from King, especially after some fundraising concerns with the grass-roots base. But I don’t see how moving to the New PA-10 will help her. Perry is a pretty well known figure in that area, and will be well-funded by the conservatives in that area and tea-partiers. It’ll be interesting to see the final totals come November.

  2. So basically, she just copy-and-pasted everything she was saying about Smucker and stuck in Perry’s name instead.

  3. Re: the question about Christina Hartman’s voting record, I do not know this first hand, but someone I know researched her voting record and reported that during the many years when Christina Hartman served abroad she never once took advantage of her ability to vote via absentee ballot. A friend om min asked her about this, and he reported that she bobbed and weaved and did not answer the question.
    Of course she has has no legislative voting record because she has never held elective office

    1. A friend of mine also asked Hartman at a Democratic party forum about her voting history while abroad to which she responded that she had been so encumbered with work that she was unable to find the time to vote by absentee ballot. His sarcastic reply to her: “You were so busy working for free elections that you couldn’t vote?” Also, she was reportedly not a registered Democrat in 2012.

      It needs to be pointed out that at Freedom House and her consulting positions, Hartman has not worked on policy or fieldwork although she likes to suggest that this is the work that she did while employed in Washington (“I sat across the table from Joe Pitts”). Hartman first worked as a grant administrator and later has been involved in grant writing to USAid and other organizations and other fundraising. This is why you will never hear her speak in concrete terms about policy or about her accomplishments.

      Like others, I think that Hartman’s change in district was as much about not facing Jess King in a primary as it was about moving to a more Democratic district. I would like to mention that York’s own Shavonnia Corbin-Johnson is an outstanding young woman and candidate for Congress with a much more impressive resumé than Hartman, including stops in Sen Bob Casey’s office, the OMB, and the White House.

  4. What a disgusting move. Hartman is the lowest of the low. She is too big a coward to run in the district she lives in so she’ll carpetbag into what she assumes in better territory. I cannot wait until she gets crushed. I’d take any of the other Dems over this sad-sack waste of space.

  5. This is a sleazy move. There are already 3 Dems running in the new PA 10 and they all actually LIVE in the district. She is afraid to run in her own district and wants an easier fight in PA 10 which is more moderate. This is one example of why the Democratic Party is so screwed up.

        1. Christine Hartman is a neoliberal who pretends to be a progressive. She spent years in the NGO, CIA-funded Freedom House, and was in Ukraine in 2004 when the CIA made its first attempt to stage a coup there with Freedom House playing a central role. Back then former CIA director and big-time Neocon James Woolsey was the head of Freedom House.
          Here in PA-11 she was vague on her issues and selectively answered questionaires. Meanwhile true progressive Jess King was gathering momentum and even out-raised both Hartman and Smucker in the 4th quarter.
          I think Hartman realized she might well lose the primary (Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 primary in Lancaster County, and Jess King is a strong unapologetic Berniecrat).
          Back in 2016 Hartman ran well behind even Hillary Clinton in PA-16 (now PA-11). Even Democrats did not buy into her act. Now Jess King can conserve her funds for the general election. Hurray! The 10th can have Christine Hartman. Good bye and good riddance. Don’t let the door hit you in the but on your way out.

          1. But seriously jerry how do you really feel? 😉

            This feels like the classic “DCCC backing well funded but otherwise lousy candidate” situation. I can’t imagine her switching over to PA-10 at the midnight hour will help her in the new 10th, but we’ll see.

          2. I first met Christina at the LCDC picnic back in 2016. She boasted about her years of public service for an NGO without naming it. I remember turning to a fellow Democrat and saying “I sure hope it wasn’t Freedom House.” (I’ve had extensive research files on Freedom House and James Woolsey for years). Then I asked her and she identified the NGO as Freedom House. I told her right then and there I could not support her.
            I have largely avoided advertising my distaste for Hartman other than confirming that I did not vote for her in 2016 and would not vote for her in 2018 either if she won the primary.
            I really do think Jess would have beat her in the primary, and that likely played a big role in Hartman switching districts. I hope she does not win the primary in PA-10 either because I predict she will lose there as well. The Democratic Establishment loves Hartman because she poses no threat to the status quo. Voters, on the other hand, are tired of these political hacks.
            There is plenty of material on Freedom House on the internet if you are interested in learning more. I suspect this is why she avoids naming Freedom House and instead merely says she worked for an NGO. Hartman’s list of contributors also makes for interesting reading.

          3. Wow, Jerry. I’m kind of impressed with your comments. While the politics of Freedom House has fluctuated dramatically over the years, it is certainly true that the Freedom House of the early 2000s leaned conservative and was accused of interfering with the governments and elections of Ukraine, Iran, and other countries. And yes, Jim Woolsey, a neocon Democrat who later advised Donald Trump’s Presidential campaign, headed Freedom House at that time. What’s craziest to me is that its Board of Trustees from that era included Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Otto Reich, and Jeane Kirkpatrick—a real Rogue’s Gallery. I could never figure out why Hartman was proud of her work with this organization. I also have looked at the list of Hartman donors and I question whether Hartman is a Democrat at all. I would like to know something about her voting record and her registration.

  • Do you agree that ByteDance should be forced to divest TikTok?

    • Yes. It's a national security risk. (60%)
    • No. It's an app used by millions and poses no threat. (40%)
    • What's ByteDance? (0%)

    Total Voters: 30

    Loading ... Loading ...
Continue to Browser


To install tap and choose
Add to Home Screen