BUG: pd.to_datetime cannot infer and coerce dates with AM/PM and infer_datetime_format=True and errors="coerce".

[ghost]

Checklist

• I have checked that this issue has not already been reported.
• I have confirmed this bug exists on the latest version of pandas.
• (optional) I have confirmed this bug exists on the master branch of pandas.

---

Code Sample

series = pd.Series(data=['1/1/2021 11:00:00 AM', '1/1/2021 12:00:00 PM', '1/1/2021 1:00:00 PM'])
result = pd.to_datetime(series, errors='coerce', infer_datetime_format=True)

Problem description

The function should be able to infer datetime strings with AM/PM correctly. This can be seen when using errors='raise' which will correctly return the expected values. Looks like this is a result of an existing issue - #25143.

Expected Output

expected = pd.Series(data=[Timestamp('2021-01-01 11:00:00'), Timestamp('2021-01-01 12:00:00'), Timestamp('2021-01-01 13:00:00')])

Output of pd.show_versions()

INSTALLED VERSIONS

commit : 6a683a2
python : 3.8.10.final.0
python-bits : 64
OS : Darwin
OS-release : 19.6.0
Version : Darwin Kernel Version 19.6.0: Tue Jun 22 19:49:55 PDT 2021; root:xnu-6153.141.35~1/RELEASE_X86_64
machine : x86_64
processor : i386
byteorder : little
LC_ALL : en_US.UTF-8
LANG : en_US.UTF-8
LOCALE : en_US.UTF-8
pandas : 1.4.0.dev0+597.g6a683a2911
numpy : 1.21.1
pytz : 2021.1
dateutil : 2.8.2
pip : 21.1.3
setuptools : 52.0.0.post20210125
Cython : 0.29.24
pytest : 6.2.4
hypothesis : 6.14.4
sphinx : 4.1.2
blosc : 1.10.4
feather : None
xlsxwriter : 1.4.4
lxml.etree : 4.6.3
html5lib : 1.1
pymysql : None
psycopg2 : None
jinja2 : 3.0.1
IPython : 7.25.0
pandas_datareader: None
bs4 : 4.9.3
bottleneck : 1.3.2
fsspec : 2021.05.0
fastparquet : 0.6.3
gcsfs : 2021.05.0
matplotlib : 3.4.2
numexpr : 2.7.3
odfpy : None
openpyxl : 3.0.7
pandas_gbq : None
pyarrow : 4.0.1
pyxlsb : None
s3fs : 2021.05.0
scipy : 1.7.0
sqlalchemy : 1.4.22
tables : 3.6.1
tabulate : 0.8.9
xarray : 0.18.2
xlrd : 2.0.1
xlwt : 1.3.0
numba : 0.53.1

[simonjayhawkins]

Thanks @mikephung122 for the report. I would be inclined to close this as a duplicate but since you have an open PR that only fixes this specific case, I'll leave this open for now. see #43416 (comment)