The thing that surprised me yesterday was learning that being convicted of a felony doesn't prevent you from running for public office or the office of President of the United States! So it seems like a pretty impotent "hanging". I had assumed that barring him from running for re-election was the major motivation behind pursing these indictments, but I guess that's not the case. So that suggests that these moves are mainly about public opinion? If that's what it is, then this particular indictment seems like the weakest of the possible ones that have been talked about. Taking all this into account, I can't help but think that this kind of plays into Trump's desire to be the center of attention.
This depends on the state. Being convicted of a felony in Florida bars you from running for public office or voting in the state (until granted clemency). A conviction in Georgia would similarly bar Trump from voting in Florida, but not one in New York (which does not disenfranchise felons).
But yes, it doesn't affect his ability to run for federal office, even if it would make it hard for him to campaign from jail.
The vast majority of american democracy relies on "norms" and "the public will do the right thing" and "surely they will only elect people who deserve it"
For the vast majority of elected offices, one of the most important qualifications is "registered to vote in the district you are going to represent". Most offices have some age requirement (which might be as simple as "old enough to register to vote") and extremely few had some occupational requirement (like District Attorney has a law degree/license requirement, but Sheriff has no such requirement). When I ran for office in Colorado, failing to be registered to vote in the district you represent was the fastest and most automatic way of getting thrown out of office: no trial, no impeachment, just out you go.
The requirements for President are listed in the Constitution. Getting on the ballot in each state is harder as each state has different requirements.
You know, we also have this thing in the Western world called "the rule of law". It's this really weird idea that when someone breaks the law, they should be punished for it, no matter how powerful or well-liked they are.
Bragg wouldn't have brought this case if he wasn't sure he can get a conviction. And that's actually unfair treatment: With any other defendant he may take bigger chances, be less hesitant, less careful. And the case wouldn't have been derailed that long. Do you even know the whole history how this got deferred during the Trump presidency and even after?
"Show me the man, I will find you a crime"
However:
1 iirc Grand Jury's are the ones that get to do everything behind closed doors. So we wouldnt know if they had a smoking gun until after trial possibly.
2 The US has a history of pursuing people it doesn't like through financial crimes. Rico etc.
I think its easy to see this in the lens of "oh its another attack on trump that will go away again" and if you experience your entire life through the highs and lows of the media cycle thats quite possibly going to be the case. But I think each prong of attack opens up a little more of Trumps weakness and eventually, either through weight of legal cost or dumb luck they will find something to hang him with.