If she wins, the NYT has lost all (remaining sliver of) credibility
How? Because its polls are saying something different than what you want to hear?
Being wrong in polling isn't the same thing as being bad at polling. All pollsters are guessing about certain factors. That's why different polls have different leans. If the Times is consistently pro-Trump, it's not on purpose -- at least not unless you think Nate Cohn is in the process of destroying a great deal of professional credibility that he has spent years and years building. The Needle is really great technology. Plus, the polls are conducted by Siena, which also has no obvious reason to be biased.
Polling is like poker. Over a lot of cycles, the better pollsters will rise to the top -- but that doesn't mean they are going to get every specific example correct, any more than the best poker player is going to win every hand. If I play at a poker table with pros, I will very likely get rolled. But consider this situation: on the first hand, a player gets the nut full house and puts me all-in. I have a straight flush draw. And then on the river I hit it. I win, pro player is out. Pro player played it correctly, I would imagine. It's just that he modeled me as a rational player when I turned out not even to be that, and also got a bad beat.
[By the way, I've described the poker scene in Casino Royale, which was humorous and improbable but also required Bond to play like an idiot]
If you have a reason to think the Times is doing something wrong, then the criticism is fair game. But if it's just that the results aren't correct, that doesn't mean much.