I would say the odds of passing a 17th amendment repeal by itself are about a 0.000000001% of it happened, and the likelihood of passing it IN CONJUNCTION with "term limits", measuring to prevent gerrymandering, etc., is even less so.
It's like how the anti-death penalty crowd is always refuted by comments about how murderers given "life" sentences are often paroled and commit more crimes. Their "solution" is to just use the talking point that there should be MANDATORY NATURAL LIFE sentences for murder, and that will solve this loophole, since "letting the murderer rot in prison for the rest of his life is a much better punishment than killing him quickly. That's the coward's way out"
But we know the reality is that not one single country or state that abolished the death penalty, has done it IN CONJUNCTION with a new pass that mandates murderers MUST serve natural life in prison and CANNOT be paroled.
I see the same reality with places that let politicians appoint politicians to "represent" people in the upper house of government. None of them have resolved any of these issues. Countries have such a system of appointed legislators, like the UK and Canada, absolutely loathe their unelected government overlords. We still have such a system in place for the judicial branch (federal judges appointed for life by politicians, people have no say in the matter) and people loathe it. There's no likelihood those judges will be term limited any time soon.
You can talk all you want about how this package of reforms will solve the problem so your repeal plan works. Whether the anti-17thers would actually do that is another matter.
I’m confident there will be term limits. It will require either a grandfathering of current members or numerous primary upsets. But we’ll get there within three or so election cycles.
As for repealing the 17th? Not sure.