In 1858, Republican Abe Lincoln won 50.6% of the vote (either that’s the total % GOP legislative candidates got or there was a separate preference referendum) but the leg majority remained rat and they voted along party lines to reelect Douglas, the 17 amendment wasn’t passed for another 50 years.
I was talking about now (and in the recent past). Clearly, there was a time when state legislatures could do what they liked when it came to appointing Senators, but by 1913 or so that had changed, and it isn't going to change back any time soon.
My understanding of the 1858 figures is that there wasn't a separate preference referendum, though, so even though more votes may have gone to Republican legislative candidates, there wasn't a firm mandate from the electorate to vote for Lincoln, and the Democrat majority in the legislature didn't feel bound to support the candidate of the other party. So long as there wasn't a head-to-head two candidate popular vote, state legislatures had a free hand.
I guess the moral of the story for those who want indirect election of Senators is to make sure voters don't have any opportunity to vote for candidates directly. You'd have to do away with primary elections too. It would be better to make the selection process non-partisan and multi-candidate. I don't see much hope today for changing the system back to what it once was, though.