Nope. Saying it's a FACT doesn't it one (another anti-17th amendment conservative told me it was a "FACT" the Senate would have never passed Obamacare if there was no 17th, and that certainly wasn't a fact since the majority of state legislatures in America were Democrat at the time Obamacare was being considered by the Senate, and they would have thus appointed socialist Obama flunkies)
If you're talking about the overall Senate makeup since 1913, it definitely wouldn't be a "FACT" since Democrats had firm control of a majority of state legislatures at numerous times since 1913.
If you're talking about this exact moment, yes, there would be more Republicans in the Senate at present than there are under the popular vote method. But it is not a fact they'd be more conservative. The GOP establishment party bosses in most states are warily of "tea party types" they can't "control", and the vast majority of appointed Senators chosen by state government has been mostly low-key, don't-rock-the-boat party hacks and yes-men. I believe the most likely scenario is most of the appointed Republican Senators would be less conservative than their elected counterparts.
“If you’re talking about this exact moment, yes, there would be more Republicans in the Senate at present than there are under the popular vote method.”
AL: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2010, when Democrats had majorities in both state houses), instead of 2 Republicans
AK: 2 Republicans (probably both RINOs, since conservative Republicans didn’t win legislative majorities until 2012) (elected in 2008 and 2010), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat
AZ: 2 Republicans(elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
AR: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2010), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat
CA: 2 Democrats (elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
CO: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2010), same as under the 17th Am.
DE: 2 Democrats (elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
FL: 2 Republicans (probably one being RINO Charlie Crist, whi has since become a Democrat) (elected in 2010 and 2012), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat
GA: 2 Republicans (elected in 2008 and 2010), same as under the 17th Am. (but 2 Democrats from 1913-2005)
HI: 2 Democrats (elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
ID: 2 Republicans (elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
IL: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2010), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat
IN: 1 Democrat and 1 Republican (elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
IA: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2010), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat
KS: 2 Republicans (elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
KY: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2010, when Democrats had large House majorities and Republicans had small Senate majorities), instead of 2 Republicans
LA: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2010), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat
ME: 1 Democrat and 1 Republican (elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
MD: 2 Democrats (elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
MA: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am. (and Kerry’s replacement would be guaranteed to be a D)
MI: 1 Democrat and 1 Republican (elected in 2008 and 2010), instead of 2 Democrats (Dems had large House majorities and Republicans large Senate majorities, so I think they’d elect one RINO and one Democrat)
MN: 1 Democrat and 1 Republican (elected in 2008 and 2012), instead of 2 Democrats
MS: 1 Democrat and 1 Republican (elected in 2008 and 2012), instead of 2 Republicans
MO: 2 Republicans (elected in 2010 and 2012), instead of 1 Democrat and 1 Republican
MT: 1 Democrat and 1 Republican (elected in 2008 and 2012), instead of 2 Democrats
NE: 2 Republicans (elected in 2008 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
NV: 2 Democrats (elected in 2010 and 2012), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat
NH: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2010), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat
NJ: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
NM: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
NY: 2 Democrats (elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
NC: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2010), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat
ND: 2 Republicans (elected in 2010 and 2012), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat
OH: 2 Republicans (elected in 2010 and 2012), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat (but at least one of the Republicans would be a RINO due to Dem House control in 2010)
OK: 2 Republicans (elected in 2008 and 2010), same as under the 17th Am.
OR: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2010), same as under the 17th Am.
PA: 2 Republicans (elected in 2010 and 2012), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat (but at least one of the Republicans would be a RINO due to Dem House control in 2010)
RI: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
SC: 2 Republicans (elected in 2008 and 2010), same as under the 17th Am.
SD: 2 Republicans (elected in 2008 and 2010), instead of 1 Republican and 1 Democrat
TN: 2 Republicans (elected in 2008 and 2012), (but at least one of the Republicans would be a RINO due to Dem/RINO House control in 2008), same as under the 17th Am.
TX: 2 Republicans (elected in 2008 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
UT: 2 Republicans (elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
VT: 2 Democrats (elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
VA: 2 Republicans (elected in 2008 and 2012), (but at least one of the Republicans would be a RINO due to Dem Senate control in 2008), instead of 2 Democrats
WA: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
WV: 2 Democrats (elected in 2008 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am. (and Rockefeller’s seat surely would stay D next year)
WI: 1 Democrat and 1 Republican (elected in 2010 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
WY: 2 Republicans (elected in 2008 and 2012), same as under the 17th Am.
So with state legislatures electing Senators we currently would have a Senate with 55 Democrats and 45 Republicans—exactly the same number as we have today with elected Senators! And those 45 Republicans would include far more RINOs if the state legislators made the picks, sometimes because small GOP legislative majorities or Democrat control of the other house makes a compromise unavoidable, but more often because several states have RINO-controlled legislators and, even when they don’t, career politicians are more likely to elect go-along-to-get-along types such as David Dewhurst of Texas.
So I would oppose any attempt to repeal the 17th Amendment.