If the 17th Amendment had never been enacted then Democrats would have been more desperate to keep control of state legislatures and governorships. They would use similar arguments that Republicans use when they field lousy candidates: we need a Republican in office to make sure the Supreme Court stays conservative. Only they would be saying we need a Democrat in office to make sure our Senator is also a Democrat.
And do the states really want to be protected from the Feds? Some governors like to rattle their sabers, but would they really want to pay for all the stuff they are currently getting "for free" from the Feds? Would they really want to completely fund the building and maintenance of roads, bridges, and dams? Would they really want to fund a state militia rather than depending on the National Guard? Would they really want to takeover all of the National Parks?
When governors start sending federal money back to Washington then we can start getting worked up over the 17th Amendment. Utah is now making a stand to see if they can retake lands taken by the feds. I don't imagine that will go anywhere, but if it does then trying to rescind the 17th Amendment might make some sense.
The feds never "took land away from Utah." They just retained title to land that private citizens didn't buy, as in other states.
Most federal land, in Utah and elsewhere, was up for sale through the mid-20th century.
BTW, this was part of the Enabling Act by which Congress authorized entry of Utah as a state.
That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof;... and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States
http://archives.utah.gov/research/exhibits/Statehood/1894text.htm
What part of "forever" does Utah not understand?