Trump's Cabinet picks boast thin resumes. That's the point: ANALYSIS

Many of President-elect Donald Trump's picks to fill his Cabinet boast resumes that are thin on the kind of subject matter the agencies they would helm oversee.

But that doesn't necessarily mean they're politically unqualified.

The ongoing battle on Capitol Hill over Trump's selections underscores how outsider bona fides and shake-it-up attitudes now imbue would-be secretaries with credibility. That's in contrast to steady-as-she-goes mantras and beefy résumés in a government bureaucracy that voters believe has failed them, Republican operatives told ABC News.

The shifting vocabulary is just another example of Trump's ability to transform norms in Washington, but also of voter frustrations and a shifting electorate. And now, Democrats warned, targeting nominees' résumés risks reinforcing the image that the party is unreceptive to the beliefs of everyday Americans about what ails the country.

"I'm not endorsing anyone, but the argument that this person isn't qualified to do X because he doesn't have the résumé or the establishment kiss of approval just reinforces that they don't get it," said Chris Kofinis, a Democratic strategist and former aide to Sen. Joe Manchin, I-W.Va. "Debating résumés when most people distrust government plays right into Trump's favor."

"If you asked most American people, guess what they would say, 'What's the difference? It's not like they've been doing a great job beforehand, so now you're worried about this guy?'" Kofinis added of would-be nominees' qualifications. "The argument is, 'you need to have people with managerial and certain type of policy expertise to run these agencies.' Based on whose opinion? Based on experts' opinion, or based on the American people's opinion?"

Trump has moved at a rapid pace to flesh out his upcoming administration, handpicking an array of establishment and unconventional people for top posts.

Sen. Marco Rubio and Rep. Mike Waltz, two Floridians, were deemed establishment picks for secretary of state and national security adviser, respectively.

The president-elect has also put forth Fox News host and Army veteran Pete Hegseth as his Pentagon chief, Linda McMahon to lead the Education Department, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem as homeland security secretary and former Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii to be director of national intelligence. Former Florida GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz was also pegged to be attorney general, though he took his name out of consideration on Thursday.

None have particularly brawny resumes on those departments' subject matter, which Democrats have repeatedly noted.

To be certain, resumes aren't the only issue at play. Gaetz and Hegseth are beset by sexual misconduct allegations, and Trump is still one to put a premium on loyalty as he sifts through is options for top administration posts. But Democrats have also worked to paint several of the picks as "unqualified" based on their relative lack of experience as well as by virtue of past personal issues and Trump's various policy pushes.

The question, though, is precisely what the word "qualified" means after an election in which voters registered their discontent with business as usual via their ballots.

"I think you can call some of these people outsiders, for sure. Others have experience, it's just not the experience that maybe the D.C. establishment is looking for. It's not somebody that worked their way up in this department and now is the person to do it. It's someone that's going to take a fresh look," said Nick Trainer, a GOP strategist and former Trump administration official.

"Americans that aren't tuned into their government every day are shifting towards the Republican Party, and it's because these elites in the D.C. establishment and the Democrat Party don't get it," Trainer added. "They just don't understand that an average American in a Midwestern state or whatever doesn't care if their secretary of XYZ studied at Harvard. That's not what they want."

The new standard is being established with the help of Trump's unique sway among his base, offering him the ability to inject credibility into his picks solely by virtue of his imprimatur. And now, Democrats are forced to grapple with precisely how to respond.

The party is undergoing a post-election reckoning to understand how its brand became so unpalatable that Vice President Kamala Harris suffered a comprehensive defeat to a twice-impeached convicted felon. Tactical decisions over advertising, spending, media appearances and more have been cited as possible pitfalls for Harris.

But beyond tactics, Democrats lamented a reputation as elitist, inside-the-beltway experts with little knowledge or interest in what average Americans feel is important for the country. And going after cabinet candidates for lacking elite academic or government bureaucratic credentials risks exacerbating the issue.

"The dog whistle when it comes to how Democrats describe experience, is it means status quo," said Sean Spicer, Trump's first White House press secretary.

Some Democrats said the likely nominees' past policy stances are ripe for criticism -- but that going after resumes could be risky.

"Anytime we are showing elitism or being preachy, it's not good for our brand. But if we're calling out folks who have turned their back on workers or people that have done things that are not in the best interest of America or other things, then I think those are distinct questions that help the party," said Chuck Rocha, a Democratic strategist who is mulling a run for Democratic National Committee chair.

"It's about not being with America, not being with the workers," Rocha added Wednesday. "I would argue against Matt Gaetz, sure, the sex parties and the other stuff is crazy, but he's also had a long resume of voting against capping insulin and other things that have really been bad for American workers."

Others advocated more of a wait-and-see approach.

"If your angle of attack is, 'person X is grossly unqualified,' let them prove they're not qualified," Kofinis said. "If you want to start earning trust back from the American people, stop being so quick to give an answer and conclusion, and wait."

While Democrats are figuring out how to respond to Trump's picks and how to resurrect their brand more broadly, Republicans are satisfied to watch them twist in the wind.

"Democrats are the resistance party. They're going to find whatever excuse they can to resist," said one former Trump campaign official. "So, I'm not surprised by that, but they're going to continue to hurt themselves, that's for sure. They're missing the point."