There're is common in speech, at least in certain dialects, but you'll rarely see it written. If I were being pedantic, I'd advise you to use there are in your example, because there is is definitely wrong, so there's could be considered wrong as well. But a huge number of English speakers, even those that are well-educated, use there's universally, regardless of the number of the noun in question, so you will probably not receive any odd looks for saying or writing there's, and if you do, just cite the fact that it can't be incorrect if a majority of people use it. As for me (a native New Englander), I use both, but may use there's in place of there're if I'm speaking quickly.
Answer from Jon Purdy on Stack ExchangeVideos
There're is common in speech, at least in certain dialects, but you'll rarely see it written. If I were being pedantic, I'd advise you to use there are in your example, because there is is definitely wrong, so there's could be considered wrong as well. But a huge number of English speakers, even those that are well-educated, use there's universally, regardless of the number of the noun in question, so you will probably not receive any odd looks for saying or writing there's, and if you do, just cite the fact that it can't be incorrect if a majority of people use it. As for me (a native New Englander), I use both, but may use there's in place of there're if I'm speaking quickly.
I don't think "there're" is ever going to fly -- it's not so much a contraction as a simple elision. The only thing being dropped is a glottal stop, which isn't a "real" sound in English.
From a strict prescriptivist grammar and usage standpoint, "there's" used with a plural is wrong. But in spoken language (which is the real language, squiggles on pages and screens are no more than an approximate rendering) we need to be careful with prescriptivist tendencies. It may offend the grammarian's ear, but the fact that a very large number of native speakers -- likely a preponderance of them -- make exactly the same "mistake" indicates that there is something else going on.
Remember that the rules of English, as we received them in school, are only an approximation of the real rules of the language, and that many of those rules were imposed in the 18th and 19th centuries by well-meaning scholars who aimed to make English a respectable, consistent and properly-documented language. It has never been such.
I'm not a native English speaker but, I hear a lot of native English speaker using ( There's ) with plural like:
There's a million things I haven't done.
There's hungry people out there.
Shouldn't it be There are million things and There are hungry people out there because both people and million things are plural?
Is this a common mistake native speakers do or does it just work that way?
It's a common mistake, even amongst natives.
It grates, but they continue to do it.
Personally, I think is has now reached "no fix" status. People will continue to do it whatever you tell them; that's how language evolves, much to the dismay of those who wish it didn't, on occasion.
The most irritating one was the Toys Я Us advert...
"There's millions says Geoffrey, all under one roof..."
which ran for decades.
Yes, but these are song lyrics. Poetic licence applies, and the lyricist probably thinks there's sounds better than there're.