The Cuba lobby has played a role in overall Latin American policy for decades now. And incidentally the   two lobbies have a longstanding alliance - the neocons initially distinguished themselves as Vietnam and anti-detente hawks in the early seventies, then as Central America hawks in the eighties. The Middle East only came to the forefront after the end of the Cold War and even then they weren't sure whether the new enemy should be Muslims or the Chinese - they're basically all-purpose foreign policy hardliners.

 As far as the electoral effect of writing off the Cuba lobby vs. the AIPAC folks, it's a bit more complicated than that. Yes, the former only affects Florida, while the latter has a wider disadvantage, but that's because of the large scale support of white Christians for hardline ME policies, rather than Jewish voters' foreign policy views which tend to run to the left of the average American. Though it is true that a moderate stance on the ME would lose Jewish votes for a Dem largely because of the intensity factor and the fact that they have the option of voting a  different candidate (hawkish Jews care more about the issue than dovish ones, and in any case the doves aren't about to vote Republican in protest at hawkish foreign policy views).