General Discussion

It means that the majority of party members do not approve of the job Schumer or Jeffries are doing. There is a disconnect between the party leaders and its constituents. They may be elected as members of the House or Senate by the voters of their district and state, but we all get to have opinions on who should lead our party in the House and Senate. It’s how our leaders may better serve us and also how we may learn we are mistaken.
Your argument is. 1. Local voters want them elected. 2. Their colleagues elected them. 3. Therefore, national polls of Democratic Party members are not useful.
There is no discernible argument there unless I’m missing the obviousness of some implied premises. Premise one is only useful for arguing whether they should represent their community in the house or senate. Premise 2 is only useful if you assign something bordering on infallibility to congressional voting bodies. It really is the sole premise of your argument. Your conclusion then would apply in all cases no matter how ineffectual or incompetent the leaders showed themselves to be. It seems a little presumptuous that things are how they should be if you’re popular with your district and are elected as party leader. Of course this doesn’t mean that the polls should solely guide decisions either, but they are useful in understanding our constituency perceives things. This is not to say you haven’t made good points in this conversation, I just don’t believe this is one of them.