Woodrow Wilson vs. Calvin Coolidge

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Coolidge, tho that's more because Wilson was such a horrible President.  The good things that happened during Wilson's presidency would have largely happened no matter who had won in 1912, with at most a few details changing had either Teddy or Taft won. The primary exception is the Adamson Act, which I doubt would have happened under either Teddy or Taft. (Definitely not under Taft, but while Teddy might not have vetoed it, I doubt he'd seek passage of it or any similar bill.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Wilson laid the ground for a lot of what would go onto become the New Deal, but was very racist even by the standards of his day. Coolidge was pretty personally progressive on race for his day, although he had little in terms of legislative achievements to show from it, and was a disaster on the economy, contributing to the environment which led to the Crash.

Not really. He presided over that groundwork; he did not perform it. By today's standards, there was little difference between what the three major candidates stood for in 1912.  Most of what Wilson gets credit for was either already on the way to happening or would have happened no matter who won the White House that year.  The income tax, stronger anti-trust legislation, the Federal Reserve, and direct election of Senators would have happened regardless during what was Wilson's first term.