Apparently the biggest opposition to Mr. Daw is his call
for an Article V constitutional convention. People generally supported reigning in federal spending, but the consensus seemed to be that that a V-con was a stupid way to do it.
I apologize, but I don't know either of these candidates well enough to have an opinion off the top of my head.
But I think it would fair to say that while some limited government folks have looked to a Constitutional Convention (aka ConCon) to rein in the federal government, the general consensus is that a ConCon is very dangerous as once called there is no way to limit what is discussed or even passed. Remember, the original ConCon was really supposed to just fix the Articles of Confederation. Instead, we got a whole new form of government. I believe we came out much better. I doubt we could assemble a comparable group of delegates today as was responsible for the constitution we currently enjoy.
Those who favor a ConCon will counter that nothing could take effect without the States ratifying it. I would counter that by pointing out that there is nothing to limit what ratification method is proposed. Our current federal constitution took effect when 9 of the 13 States ratified it. But with the misguided (or malicious) opposition to the electoral college and equal representation in the Senate, I can easily imagine that a ConCon could produce a document that might go so far as to eliminate the States as semi-sovereign states, relegating them formally to just political subdivision of the federal government, and instead do things based on some purely popular vote without regard to geography. That type of thing could create a huge mess even trying to determine whether a given State had ratified it or what the effects were if it didn't.
The way to limit the feds is to elect different people and to then stop demanding they bring home the bacon. When NJ and Florida and other such States can refuse federal money for transit programs, the rest of us should also be able to say no thanks to federal money in a host of other areas.
But, I consider a ConCon a fairly remote possibility and so if an otherwise good candidate supported it, I might well consider that one of those areas of disagreement that wasn't very important to me.