Are there arguments that would also appeal to the liberal states? If it can be framed as a win/win for the whole country, it will have a better chance. Right now, our US Senators must be elected by populations larger than some countries. So the amount of money poured into their campaigns means almost inevitably they will be answering to some sort of big money interest, whether it is big banks/ big corporations/ or big unions. If there is a way to make the case that it is better to have the state legislators decide who will represent the state, and that actually it will bring the power back down closer to the common person, maybe that would be an argument that would fly with both liberals and conservatives (not liberal and conservative politicians because they will want the status quo...)
Wonder which side the media would take if this actually became a matter of national debate?
In a letter to my state rep, I painted a quick hypothetical regarding his interest in 17th repeal.
"Is it reasonable for me to assume you would oppose seating a federal judicial nominee whose writings and speeches reflected hostility to the states? Is it also safe for me to assume you would impress that view on our senators?"
The American psyche has been corrupted these past hundred years, so I don't promise a world of chocolate and cute puppies with repeal. The fact will be that even the most corrupt state legislators, perhaps especially the most corrupt, liberal state legislators would be the most focused on keeping the feds out of state matters. James Madison saw it that way, a matter of disparate interests doing what they do best, . . . protect their interests.
I think the big difference is that political corruption at the state level is closer to the people, and the states cannot print money to fund Utopia.