Yes, there is a difference, but it's not nearly as dramatic as with your version. The conditions still look roughly parallel, only one short word away from the indent point, instead of the first one being way off to the right.
Sorry, I didn't read it carefully. Anyway, youe example can be written as:
and it's much simpler to read.
That's pretty much his point. The same can be said for all of your examples.
Your version is only "simpler" in that your "case" and "elcase" are spelled "if case" and "elif case" in his. Meanwhile, your version is more complex in that the first case is crammed on the same line with the "switch". Also, instead of automatically handling tuples in a natural and obvious way, you're forced to invent a new builtin class and a new display form just to distinguish tuples inline in a case label, and still can't easily handle the distinction in a natural and readable way. And, while his can be trivially extended to handle other types of comparison besides == and in, yours can't. So, you've come up with something that's more complex, less natural, and less powerful than what we can already do, and the only benefit is a little bit of brevity.
I suggested the switch statement for a simpler alternative to the if-elif chain.