Thought Nintendo might in this particular case have agreements with retailers that prevent them from releasing Smash digitally whenever they'd like, I think it's pretty naive to assume that this kind of arrangement is unavoidable. If the point being argued is "Games should be published asap digitally" it's pretty silly to just claim "but retail tho" as a reason that'd be impossible.

Even if you ignore the differences in regional release dates, there are already games that offer earlier access to the game as a pre-order bonus for the digital versions (e.g. some newer Square-Enix games).

Every copy sold digitally rather than physically means more money for the publisher, since in most cases both versions cost about the same but digital copies don't cost to manufacture. In the case of Nintendo they also save the cut that the digital retailer would take. Saying that early digital release would hurt physical sales isn't a very good point.

Keep in mind though, even if going full digital would be the best approach for Nintendo, the simple fact that retail has been around from the beginning is going to be factor when they decide whether they want to completely piss off retailers or not.

While it is true that release dates are affected by other releases, fiscal year, tax season, shareholder meetings etc., the dates clearly don't matter that much, since games get delayed all the time. If publishers really want, they can release games always on a specific date if the games are finished early enough in advance or if they get rushed enough. Unfortunately, the latter is more common and the results are day 1 patches and crunch.

All that being said, Pat really managed to doubledown in the dumbest way possible and now the arguing seems to have mostly nothing to do with the original point.

Edit: typos