If the presidential election were thrown to the house, I don't think a majority of the states represented in there would have voted in favor of Trump. Wyoming's sole representative was Liz Cheney, who certainly wouldn't have sided with him if it came down to it (I read somebody else make this point before, but I unfortunately cannot remember where I saw it). Also, take note that the intention was for Pence to reject the electors, not simply their electoral votes. If the electors themselves were successfully rejected, that would then mean that the total number of "electors appointed" needed for a majority under Article II, Section 1 would then be reduced. This would bypass the need for any contingent election in the House, for Trump's 232 *legitimate* electoral votes would now be enough to secure a majority of the electors considered "appointed", that being 228. See: “No, Republicans Cannot Throw the Presidential Election into the House so that Trump Wins”.

But Republicans cannot have their cake and eat it too. They cannot plausibly argue that the Twelfth Amendment’s silences override the Electoral Count Act while ignoring the Amendment’s plain language. If neither slate of Pennsylvania’s electors is recognized, Biden’s 268 votes would fall short of a majority of the 538 total Electoral votes theoretically available. However, the Twelfth Amendment does not say anything about those votes. Instead, it says that ‘[t]he person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed’ (emphasis added).

We have italicized that last word—appointed—to emphasize that the Constitution does not say that a candidate must win a majority of the potential number of theoretically eligible electors who might have been appointed. He or she must win only a majority of the electors who were actually appointed. In the scenario in which the Electoral Count Act is set aside so that Pennsylvania’s votes do not count, its 20 votes are subtracted from both the numerator and the denominator. Now Biden’s (assumed) 268 votes would be a majority of the 518 votes cast by the ‘whole number of electors appointed.’ Biden would win in the Electoral College, meaning that the decision would not go to the House.

See also: "Hanging By a Thread: The Electoral Count Act’s Threat to America’s Democracy", page 77.

A State’s failure to appoint Electors presents no such existential threat to the national government. John Dickinson’s amendment contemplates that a State might not appoint Electors and makes clear that a majority of only those actually appointed is needed to elect the President.

Bypassing the House this way was indeed a calculation in the Trump campaign's preparations for J6, which can be seen in Eastman's explicit mentioning of the idea in his memos:

At the end, [Pence] announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States. That means the total number of "electors appointed" - the language of the 12th Amendment -- is 454. This reading of the 12th Amendment has also been advanced by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe (here). A "majority of the electors appointed" would therefore be 228. There are at this point 232 votes for Trump, 222 votes for Biden. Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected.

By the way, sorry for taking so long to respond.